Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Concorde

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about Concorde's noise levels, in view of the conflict of evidence produced by different reports from his Department and elsewhere.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the reported noise levels of Concorde during its take off and landings at Heathrow Airport during the summer.

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): The Concorde noise monitoring results which I gave to the House on 13th October are now being studied by the manufacturers to see whether there is any possibility of further reductions in noise levels being achieved by modifications to operational procedures. The Department's results are broadly comparable with data so far published by the Greater London Council.

Mr. Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why in that answer on 13th October he gave only the maximum readings, and why the readings were shown in a unit of measurement not commonly used internationally for measuring aircraft noise? Will he see that the professional Concorde-knockers do not get assistance from his Department in the production of one-sided figures? Will he give an undertaking to call a meeting with the manufacturers and trade unions in Britain and France to see what action they could or should take in the event of the Port of New York Authority using distorted or incorrect figures to prevent Concorde from landing at Kennedy Airport?

Mr. Shore: I do not accept that the unit of measurement employed at Heathrow is in any sense unconventional. It is a recognised unit of measurement and indeed tests were carried out, particularly as to siting of noise checkpoints, mobile as well as fixed, in association with a number of interested bodies, including


environmental groups and local authorities. Of course there is a distinction between the measurements at Heathrow and generally agreed international measurements as set out in Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention. It is an internationally agreed level which is taken into account by the manufacturers in planning engine performance in relation to noise, and in my view it will be closely studied by the United States and other authorities.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that publication of these figures was ill timed at a moment when people are trying to sell the aircraft around the world? Was the British Aircraft Corporation right to say that strict noise procedures were not being carried out? Does he agree that inexperienced pilots have been flying the aircraft? What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the British Airports Authority about new take-off and landing procedures for supersonic aircraft in view of the problems they face?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. He said that publication of results was ill timed. I can only answer by saying that the procedures in a democracy often result in matters being published at moments which various interests may consider to be ill timed. Nevertheless, there has been a proper public interest among hon. Members on both sides of the House in demanding that noise measurements of Concorde's proving flights should be monitored and made known. I take it as my duty not to suppress information but to make information available to the House and to the public.
As for the pilots being inexperienced, naturally we have not yet had a great deal of experience of flying this aircraft, and part of the testing programme was aimed at developing the experience of pilots. However, I do not accept that they were inexperienced in any other sense, but clearly their familiarity with the handling of Concorde will have been greatly enhanced by the proving flights that took place in the summer.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that current investigations into Concorde noise levels will not hold up the first commercial flights of Concorde out of Heathrow?

Mr. Shore: I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will understand that the certification of Concorde has to be decided by the CAA, an independent authority.

Mr. Jessel: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the recommendation by the Noise Advisory Council that Concorde should not be allowed to take off and land at night? Will he confirm and enforce the strict ban on Concorde being allowed to manoeuvre at night over residential areas?

Mr. Shore: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I appreciate that he lives in an area greatly affected by aircraft movements. I assure him that there will be no taking off or landing in any normal circumstances of Concorde after the appropriate night-time period begins.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the Secretary of State not agree that, had the figures that were released after the tests at Casablanca been available at the same time, they would have put a rather different picture on these alarmist figures? Therefore, will he have a word with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Industry, to see why the copy of the report on the Casablanca tests, which is stated to have been placed in the Library, is still not available?

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—whose presence on the Opposition Front Bench I note with interest and pleasure—for his, as usual, well-informed intervention on this important question. It is true that a separate set of tests has been conducted under Annex 16 to the Chicago Convention and that those tests were conducted at Casablanca. Those tests, which are internationally accepted tests, produced the general conclusion that we had ourselves previously affirmed—the expectation that Concorde's noise would be broadly comparable not with the most modern of subsonic jets but with the Boeing 707–320C and so on, and those results have been confirmed.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the timing of the later publication of the Casablanca results, in relation to which there were certain problems. We should have liked to have them as nearly as possible published with our own figures. I shall certainly pass on to my


right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry what the hon. Gentleman has said about copies being available in the Library.

Mr. Terry Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the endurance flights of Concorde; and if he will state when he expects the British Government to grant the aircraft its certificate of airworthiness.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): My noble Friend the Minister of State for Industry expressed on 13th September his appreciation of the hard work done by all concerned in bringing to a satisfactory conclusion an intensive programme of endurance flying. The issue of a United Kingdom type certificate is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The Chairman has told me that, subject to the demonstration of a revised cruise technique satisfactory for all expected atmospheric conditions, the issue of this certificate will be possible in ample time to avoid any delay in introducing the aircraft into airline service.

Mr. Walker: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for the success of this project that the certificate should be issued as soon as possible, especially as the French already have their certificate? Is he aware that there will be a delay between the operations of Air France and British Airways unless this certificate is issued quickly? Will he use his good offices to make sure that the Government urge the Civil Aviation Authority to issue the certificate as soon as possible?

Mr. Davis: This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. The concept of type certification is a little different in each of the two countries. In Britain it covers certain aspects that the French cover in operational control rather than by a certificate. I have no doubt that the Authority will note my hon. Friend's observations.

Mr. Warren: May I press the hon. Gentleman to make sure that the certificate is granted without any further delay? The French are operating the same aircraft by the same methods. Does he not recognise that there is a danger that we shall be in a comic opera situation—not able to operate an aircraft that the French have already certificated?

Mr. Davis: The Authority is an independent organisation and the matters raised by the hon. Member are entirely its responsibility. I am sure that the CAA will have noted the views expressed today.

Import Controls

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from the TUC and the CBI regarding import controls; and what response he has made.

Mr. Shore: Like other Ministers, I have recently received papers on this subject from both the TUC and the CBI. The Government will obviously give them careful consideration.

Mr. Blaker: Although there would be a general welcome for a tightening up of the procedures against dumping, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of his right hon. Friends, including the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, have spoken out against the imposition of import controls in other circumstances? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in Tokyo on 18th September he himself said that the British Government saw no attraction in the imposition of import controls? Will he confirm that that is still his view?

Mr. Shore: We are very willing indeed, as I have previously indicated, to use our powers whenever serious prima facie evidence of dumping is made available. I am perfectly willing to look more widely at the general question of anti-dumping measures, in so far as any suggestions are compatible with the agreed GATT arrangements.
Various statements have been made about imports. I think that the hon. Gentleman can certainly take it for granted that the view of the British Government is that the major purpose is to avoid trade restrictions, by promoting the expansion of the world economy and international trade. However, we cannot rule out circumstances in which it may be inevitable and in the national interest for us to proceed in a different way.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a great many Questions about import controls.
I propose to move on to Question No. 10 as quickly as I can and not now to allow many supplementary questions.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy regarding import controls.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will now introduce selective import controls.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he plans to introduce import controls.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is prepared to institute selective import controls in such areas as the field of textiles, footwear and motor cars at an early date.

Mr. Shore: My prime objective is the early revival and expansion of world trade. But I do not rule out protective measures for particular industries suffering or threatened with serious injury as a result of increased imports. In any particular case we would have to consider all the relevant factors, including the fact that other countries can also use protective measures, before deciding where the balance of advantage lay.

Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has been looking at this matter for far too long to please workers in this country? While we are in a situation in which the multinational companies in Britain are in effect controlling our exports, we have the right to demand control of imports.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend will accept that the trading relations between countries are, perhaps, somewhat more complex than the policies, although they are relevant to the trading relationships, of particular multinational companies. Although I understand the position of and sympathise with all my hon. Friends who, naturally, have pressure upon them from constituents who are worried about the future, and who indeed are perhaps already affected by the present, we must face the fact that we are in the middle of a world trade recession. We have to consider how we can best handle this situation and overcome it in the interests of our own people as well as of others.

Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the imposition of selective import controls is the policy of the Labour Party and of the TUC? Will he also bear in mind that, particularly in the textile industry, cheap imports not only threaten the jobs of our own workers, including textile workers in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland and the North of England in particular, but are often the direct result of multinational companies exploiting cheap labour in other countries?

Mr. Shore: The problem of cheap imports is important, but we have to remember that cheap imports are not by any means the same as dumped imports. We have long understood in the Labour movement in this country that countries that have formerly lagged well behind us in terms of industrial development will inevitably turn to certain ranges of industries where their skills and natural advantages can be used, and will develop them first.
In the case of textiles there is the new multi-fibre arrangement, which has only recently been concluded, and which broadly will be of benefit to Britain, because it not only limits the increases available to other countries, particularly developing countries which have this advantage, but limits them in an orderly way, and, in terms of the EEC, has within it a burden-sharing formula un doubtedly beneficial to Britain.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the event of the Government imposing import controls some retaliatory measures are bound to be taken, which will lead to greater unemployment?

Mr. Shore: There is here a question of the possible international repercussions of particular measures that may be taken by the British Government. Obviously, that is something that any responsible Government must consider and weigh before deciding on any particular action about imports. If I may express my view in these words, I shall at least, I hope, command considerable support on both sides of the House. I would not expect any of my hon. Friends, or any hon. Members opposite, to urge upon me a course of action that, after serious examination and with the best possible information available, would lead to


results the very opposite of the results they want. That will not necessarily always be the case, but it is a serious factor that we must weigh in the interests of our own people.

Mr. Hoyle: Will not my right hon. Friend accept that it is not sympathy but action that the workers are demanding? Does he not also accept that the threat of reprisals has been overstated too often? Will he not take action before it is too late with imports of textiles, footwear and glass? Will he bear in mind that only last week we have seen Chrysler threatening to withdraw from this country, while a British designed car is to be produced in France and imported here, with the loss of British jobs? We are demanding action.

Mr. Shore: The question of Chrysler is now being considered, as my hon. Friend knows, and important consultations are being held in a few days' time. Therefore, I should not like to comment separately on that case at the moment. However, it may be that some have overstated the dangers of retaliation, but I equally put to some of my hon. Friends that there is a danger in understating that probability.

Mr. Higgins: Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great deal of dangerous double talk about import controls? The true distinction is the one he makes—whether goods are dumped. The term "selective import controls" totally fudges that vital distinction. Will the right hon. Gentleman reject the protectionist appeals of Ron Hayward and others, which would be likely to create retaliation and which could create not a world depression but a world slump, with beggar-my-neighbour policies and a reversion to the situation of the 1930s and higher, not lower, unemployment?

Mr. Shore: I accept one point that the hon. Gentleman made—that the phrase "selective controls" in a rather blanket way covers different situations—one in which one is faced with genuine dumping and the situation I sometimes describe as over-competitiveness. There is a distinction.
What the hon. Member has to realise—and I hope that others outside the House realise this—is that the commitment of

the major industrial countries to an increasingly free international trading order is a commitment that, on the whole, has been of benefit to this country, and it can be sustained in future only if we are able to resume the growth of international trade. If international trade fails to grow, we shall all be turned, whether we like it or not and however much we try, into enemies rather than rivals in international trade. That is a situation that I desperately want to avoid. Those who understand the history of the 1920s and 1930s will know very well why.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the argument about import controls is about world growth and the recovery of our economy? Does he agree that import controls are not temporary expedients to effect protection? They are essentially instruments of planning. If the whole of the Socialist case is about planning the economy, how can we plan it in the absence of controls on our external trade? The introduction of import controls would mean that we could expand the economy, raise production and lift world trade. It is not the other way about.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has an argument, but it is not the argument about selective import controls. It is the argument about controls more generally as a means of protecting the balance of payments, or whatever it may be.

Mr. Atkinson: That is right.

Mr. Shore: That is a matter which does not immediately concern us. We have been talking about selective controls. I wish to add only this point to what I have said on that subject. We must do our best—I have said this before—to do what we can to sustain world trade, but we cannot stand idly by in a situation that would result in the destruction of a major British industrial capacity that we shall need in the future. That is my viewpoint.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the substantial and dangerous dependence of the Government's finances on overseas borrowing, would it not be realistic for the hon. Gentleman to point out to his hon. Friends below the Gangway that the International Monetary Fund would take a very poor view of any Government who, in seeking further credit, had a


record of trade discrimination at a time when all its policies are designed to expand world trade rather than restrict it?

Mr. Shore: The important international obligation in this case is not the obligation that the hon. Gentleman has cited. It is Article 19 of the GATT. Article 19 of the GATT gives a nation the right to impose restrictions if increased imports are causing or threatening serious injury to domestic industry. That is the right under Article 19 of the GATT. What my hon. Friends have also to recognise is that the same article also gives the rest of the international community the right to have compensation in respect of the exports of the country taking that action. That is why, amongst other things, one has to think very carefully about particular cases.

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations have been made to his Department, by individuals and organisations, since March 1974, urging import controls on textiles.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): About 260. We already have restrictions on a wide range of textile items. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 23 May, the Government do not consider that an across-the-board cut in textile imports would be justified. But I am ready to consider the case for further restrictions on individual items on their merits in the light of our international obligations.

Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend take it that the number of representations from all sides of the textile industry shows that the majority of the industry recognises that the only way to safeguard the British textile industry and relieve the misery in which it now finds itself is to impose selective import controls? Further, will he agree that import controls would not create retaliation, nor export unemployment? If the Department tells me that import controls are imposed on textiles by Australia, Canada, Norway, South Korea and Taiwan, why is it right for them to exercise such controls and not right for this country?

Mr. Deakins: First, I should remind my hon. Friend that there are already

a considerable number of restrictions on textile exports from other countries to Britain. Under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement, we have agreements in operation with Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Macao and Singapore, and one will shortly come into effect in respect of Pakistan. Further agreements are to be negotiated by the end of this year with Mexico, Latin America and the East European countries. Thus, virtually the whole of the developing world will be covered by these agreements in the next six months. Moreover, we do not wish to take selective action on textiles that is not justified under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement, which represents for the first time ever an international agreement between the developed and the developing countries to control international trade in this important commodity—important for us and important for many developing countries. Finally, we do not, at least on this side of the House, wish to export unemployment—certainly not to very poor countries. We must take all the steps we can to protect employment in this country without harming the interests of people who are at present unemployed or in work in other and poorer countries.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I revert to the question of dumping strictly so-called, not selective import controls? Do I understand from the answers to previous Questions that it is the Government's view that our anti-dumping machinery is the strongest we are entitled to adopt under the GATT? If that is so, why is it that Canada adopts much stronger anti-dumping machinery and yet is apparently able to keep within the GATT?

Mr. Deakins: I am satisfied that the measures we have taken under the GATT anti-dumping code—rather than our own legislation of 1969—represent or contain the strongest possible measures we can use to restrain dumped imports from other countries. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the GATT rules could be tightened up or be made more stringent, that is an entirely different matter. I am not aware that Canada has any approach to anti-dumping basically different from that adopted by Britain. There is a difference in respect of the United


States, but it arises because of something known as the "grandfather" clause, since United States domestic legislation existed on this issue before the GATT anti-dumping code was drawn up.

Mr. James Lamond: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that some of those who are calling for import restrictions are employed by our own companies, which invest in mills abroad which provide the cheap imports coming to this country, and that the British Government have themselves financed a number of projects in developing countries, which will add to the difficulties of our textile industry? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, have urgent talks with his colleagues to see whether any strategy can be developed by the Government at least to provide alternative employment for the many textile workers who are being thrown out of work because of the present policy?

Mr. Deakins: My hon. Friend's last point is certainly important. Obviously, as my right hon. Friend has already said, no Government can stand by and see whole sectors of British industry decimated by competition from cheaper imports from overseas. But imposing selective import controls is not necessarily the only or the best means of safeguarding employment in our industries. If my hon. Friend will watch in the next few weeks for announcements about the Government's developing industrial strategy, he will, I think, find that measures will be taken that will in the longer term look after the interests of these domestic industries.

"Buy British"

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what response he has been able to gauge from consumers in the United Kingdom to his recent "Buy British" exhortation.

Mr. Shore: I have found considerable willingness to support British suppliers in the interests of helping the country overcome its current economic crisis. This support could be far greater if some suppliers improved their performance.

Mr. Dykes: Does the exhortation apply with equal force to the other countries in the European Community?

Mr. Shore: If I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, this is—[An Hon. Member: "Answer."] Of course I shall answer. The hon. Gentleman's remark is slightly frivolous. Encouraging people to buy British is not at all frivolous. My view is that it is sensible, common sense and wholly beneficial to our own people who want to help their own country at a time of difficulty. But the great difference between Britain and the other countries of the EEC is that we alone at present have a major and substantial balance of payments deficit.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend consider having further talks with the CBI and other bodies to try to put some renewed steam behind this call for people to "Buy British"? Further, will he have renewed consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry so that we can get the National Enterprise Board into business as quickly as possible to ensure that there are actually enough British manufactured goods for people to buy?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has mentioned two important matters. I shall certainly look forward to opportunities of discussing this whole subject with the CBI and the TUC. It may well be that in the context of meetings of the NEDC we shall find an early opportunity of doing that.
Concerning the National Enterprise Board, the answer is "Yes". If we are anxious to supply, as we must be at present, more of our needs from home production, whether we have the manufacturing capacity to meet our needs in a number of sectors where we should satisfactorily supply is extremely relevant. Therefore, we must do our best to see that questions of supply and efficiency in supply are dealt with, as well as directing ourselves to getting our own people to buy more of their own home products.

Dumping

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what criteria the Government are using in deciding whether imports from Communist non-market economies are being dumped.

Mr. Deakins: The Government regard imports from non-market economy countries as dumped if their price to the


United Kingdom is lower than that of comparable goods imported from market economy countries.

Mr. Shersby: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the criteria being applied are sufficiently precise to prevent the dumping of men's leatherwear and made-up clothing? Is he absolutely satisfied that the criteria applied to measuring the true costs of production in the COMECON countries are as precise as they need to be to deal with this very difficult question?

Mr. Deakins: There is no way in which we can possibly measure the cost of production in a non-market economy country. We do not apply that criterion because we could not follow it. Tightening up the GATT is obviously a matter not merely for Britain but for other GATT countries. However, I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman and all others interested that it is in their own interests as a major trading nation to ensure that, although there are rules and that they are stringent and widely observed, they are not made so stringent that they could be used against us and our own exports.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever difficulties there may be about the preciseness of the definition, we have recently moved into a surplus in trading with many of the countries described in the Question and that most of the economic forecasters predict that we shall move into substantial surpluses with many of these countries in the years to come?

Mr. Deakins: We have surpluses with a number of East European countries at present, largely as a result of their exports to Britain falling off because of the recession in Britain and in other industrial countries. When, as we all hope, the recession ends next year and world trade takes an upturn, their exports to Britain, France and Germany and other industrial countries should automatically increase.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the present GATT rules against dumping and their implementation by members of the GATT.

Mr. Shore: The basic GATT provisions on anti-dumping, supported by the detailed rules in the 1967 anti-dumping

code, should be adequate. The major trading nations have signed the code, but the United States has not fully aligned its domestic law and practice.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not the present GATT meeting in Geneva a splendid opportunity for the Government to take an initiative in attempting to have "dumping" redefined, as widespread violation of the dumping provisions of GATT appears manifest in many countries? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Government are showing sufficient initiative? Would it not be in their interests to take a greater interest and thereby take some of the steam out of the pressure coming from behind them to introduce selective import controls?

Mr. Shore: I am anxious, as the House will know, to ensure that there are not breaches of the anti-dumping code and law of the GATT. I should be interested to receive any evidence that the hon. Gentleman wishes to offer of widespread breaches. An important factor as regards large trading countries is that the United States has not fully aligned itself with the GATT antidumping code. So far this has not had a major effect, but there are a number of inquiries taking place in the United States now in which dumping is being alleged against British and other European goods but in which those making the allegations do not have to show material injury. That is a very important and adverse fact from our point of view.

Mr. Higgins: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition are not satisfied that the present measures against dumping are adequate? Nor are we satisfied that his Department is giving as much help as it might to those who have great difficulty in establishing what the price is in the domestic market of the goods being shipped to this country. This is particularly so in the context of the comparisons with the non-market countries. What initiative is the Secretary of State taking in the EEC to show that its views expressed in the negotiations reflect these fears?

Mr. Shore: A number of discussions are taking place, but in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations let us be realistic. The multilateral negotiations offer us a major opportunity to look again in a searching way at the


GATT anti-dumping code. Again being realistic, the timetable for reaching agreement in the MTNs is one which must look more to 1977 than to 1976. In the meantime, if the hon. Gentleman has any specific proposals that he wants to put to me with a view to making this more effective, he will find me entirely willing to consider them, because I have no doubt that both sides of the House have a united interest in this matter.

Mr. Carter: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to promote the export of British cars to Japan? How optimistic is he about the likely outcome of the voluntary agreement that he reached in Japan this year on the subject of the import of Japanese cars into the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: That is a somewhat different question. I am expecting further talks between the representatives of the British car industry and the Japanese car industry to take place in December. When those talks have taken place, I shall be able to give a much firmer reply to my hon. Friend's important question.

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Trade how many complaints against imports being dumped, his Department has received in the last six months; how many have now been investigated; and with what results.

Mr. Deakins: My Department has received ten formal applications for antidumping action since 1st May. Of these cases, one has been withdrawn and one completed to the satisfaction of the British industry. Five are under urgent investigation and three are awaiting further evidence from the applicants.

Mr. Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his answer again demonstrates the slowness of his Department in dealing with what is, on the basis of evidence from both sides of the House, a very serious problem? Is he aware that if his Department had taken action about shoe imports from COMECON countries three years ago, we should have had some satisfaction? As it is, we have a mild abatement from that source, but now the whole industry is concerned about the possibility of across-the-board import controls, which it does not want.

Mr. Deakins: We are considering urgently and sympathetically whether to introduce surveillance licensing. We had a voluntary agreement with COMECON countries to restrict imports of men's leather footwear, but complaints from the footwear industry come right across the board. There are, for instance, complaints about imports of ladies' leather footwear from Italy and other areas, and of cheap footwear being imported from Brazil. The complaints are not confined to COMECON countries. When the hon. Member criticises the slowness of my Department, he should realise that, although there are many complaints against dumping, it is easy to bandy accusations but less easy to get an industry-wide case supported by the whole industry and based on serious evidence that can be investigated.

Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the answers we have had from the Front Bench today have been very disappointing? The introduction of selective import controls is not part of an academic exercise. If my hon. Friends had been out of work for three or four months, they might take a different view of this issue. Does my hon. Friend recall that the document "Labour and Industry", passed by the Labour Party conference, called for selective import controls, as did the general secretary on behalf of the party as a whole? Is it not lime that my hon. Friends listened to what the party said on this issue instead of listening to hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Deakins: We are ready to listen to people throughout industry, let alone to hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the problem of selective import controls. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has found our replies disappointing, but Government policy on this matter is evolving.

Mr. Heffer: It is a pity that it does not evolve a bit more quickly.

Mr. Deakins: We have to take account of our international obligations, but we shall do what we can to protect the legitimate needs of British industry. My hon. Friend may not realise it, but, although I have had no personal experience of unemployment, I need no lessons from the Labour Benches about unemployment. My father's life was


destroyed in the 1920s and 1930s by unemployment, which left a scar on him and bitter memories for me.

Mr. Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the voluntary agreement with COMECON countries is useless for the shoe industry, because, although the imports of men's shoes have been reduced, imports of women's and children's shoes have been increased? As this voluntary agreement has obviously failed, what proposals have the Government for helping the industry?

Mr. Deakins: I do not accept that the scheme has failed. It covers a particular category—men's leather footwear—and it is being observed. We shall be keeping a close watch on it both this year and next. The fact that countries choose to increase imports of other commodities is a different situation which can be looked at afresh.

Tourist Industry

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that there is sufficient liaison with, and understanding of his policy by, the tourist industry and the various organisations representing the private sector of this industry.

Mr. Deakins: The Government, with the support of the tourist boards, have sought to ensure that Government tourism policies are as widely known as possible. The British Tourist Authority and the national tourist boards are regularly in touch with the industry.

Mr. Hicks: Does not the Minister agree, however, that tourism has been one of our more successful economic activities in recent years? It is a highly fragmented industry. Therefore, if we are to prevent contact between the Government and statutory boards from becoming meaningless generalities, are not the Government obliged to keep in close contact with the various private sectors of the industry?

Mr. Deakins: I take the hon. Gentleman's first point about the success of tourism. It is one of our major earners of foreign exchange net and one which we obviously want to foster and encourage in every possible way. As regards contact between the Government and

the private sector of the industry, three organisations in the private sector have recently been in touch with me. One of them has had a meeting with my officials, and I understand that another is producing a report. I reiterate that I and my right hon. Friend and other Ministers are ready whenever possible to listen directly to the industry.

Sir George Young: In the light of what the Minister has just said, does he agree that it was perhaps a mistake to confine his consultations on tourist policy earlier this year to the statutory tourist boards?

Mr. Deakins: No, I do not accept that it was a mistake. These boards were set up by an Act of Parliament in 1969 to be the statutory advisory bodies to the Government. They represent all the interests in tourism. Private tourist organisations which may have had some comments to make would have been perfectly justified in approaching the Authority and the tourist boards direct, as well as in making representations to the Government. However, we are perfectly prepared to listen to any such representations.

Shirt Imports

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what recent representations he has received about the level of shirt imports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Deakins: Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have received a letter from the Shirt Collar and Tie Manufacturers' Federation. The Government are ready to have an early meeting with representatives of the shirt industry to discuss the situation if they wish.

Mr. Moate: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British shirt industry fears that 1975 will be the blackest year in the history of the industry and that there could be many factory closures, such as that which occurred in my constituency recently, caused primarily by a flood of cheap imports?
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with a situation in which, for example, the new Hong Kong agreement could permit 27 million shirts to be imported into Britain next year—an increase of 10 million on


last year—together with cheap imports from Korea, Taiwan and from the Communist countries? Is the hon. Gentleman aware also that there was one instance of shirts being imported at a price of 21p per shirt from Poland and Romania? If he is not satisfied with this situation, will he state what steps the Government intend to take to protect the British industry?

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Gentleman has asked four or five questions. I shall try to answer them all as quickly as possible.
First, any further unemployment in the shirt industry would be serious. Recent trends in the industry suggest no major departure from the national pattern of unemployment. The position in the shirt industry is in fact no worse than it is in British industry on average.
Secondly, there is a misunderstanding about the position as regards Hong Kong. Previously we had two separate quotas for shirts coming from Hong Kong. They have now been combined on an all-fibre basis. There were no objections from the industry to the combining of the two sectors on an all-fibre basis. There is an advantage to British manufacturers, and indeed to the British industry generally, in having an all-fibre basis for Hong Kong shirts so that they cannot be switched from one sector to the other when restrictions have been put on one sector but not on the other. There have been increases in imports of Hong Kong shirts in the past year, mainly in the cotton sector. This is a sector that would have expanded if we had not combined the two sectors. Restrictions on South Korean knitted and woven shirts were imposed on 22nd August.

Books (Exports)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further action he will take in 1976 to promote the export of British books.

Mr. Deakins: My Department's export services will be available in 1976 as they have been in earlier years to assist the industry to promote exports of British books.

Mr. Goodhart: As British book exporters have to meet postal rates which are far higher than those now paid by their American rivals, and as British book

exporters will have to pay yet further increased postal charges in January, what encouragement will the Minister give to the various export schemes for books that avoid the use of our postal services?

Mr. Deakins: I have yet to receive any evidence that overseas sales have been affected by the first slice of the increased postal charges this year. Obviously, there are many considerations involved in the purchase of books. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I know that the Book Development Council has investigated and is applying at least one method of sending books overseas without the use of overseas postal services, and I understand that it is doing so at a substantial saving. As regards our general support, I remind the hon. Gentleman that for the next year we have offered support at nine trade fairs and at least five outward missions to promote book exports.

Mr. Christopher Price: But will not my hon. Friend realise that his reply is a little complacent? Can he give no hope on the heavy imbalance charges—heavier than in almost any other country of the world—which are having a serious effect because we are the centre of the English-speaking world and send out so many books and periodicals? If help with this burden could be met by some subsidy for the Post Office by my hon. Friend's Department, we could build on the tremendous potential for increasing both categories of exports in this area, so that many periodicals now in danger of having to close down for good could be saved.

Mr. Deakins: I take my hon. Friend's point about the imbalance charges. This is a technical matter and not one for which my Department is responsible, but I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's remarks are brought to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry who has special responsibility for these Post Office matters.

Textile Imports (Taiwan and Korea)

Sir George Young: asked the Secretary of State for Trade why it was necessary to issue notice to importers No. 1513.

Mr. Deakins: This notice was necessary to inform traders that applications


would be considered for licences to import newly restricted textiles from Taiwan and the Republic of Korea which were in transit on or before 30th September and had been paid for under the terms of irrevocable letters of credit, opened before 8th August in the case of Taiwan or 22nd August in the case of Korea.

Sir George Young: Is it not a fact that the Minister's hasty action in August, threatening with bankruptcy importers in this country who had bought goods for which they had actually paid, action that he was then forced to unscramble, showed serious errors of judgment, as revealed by the issue of the apologetic notice to which reference has been made?

Mr. Deakins: There was no error of judgment. The restrictions imposed on Taiwan and Korea were emergency restrictions imposed at the behest of the British textile industry generally, which had suffered a lot from competition by imports from those countries. They were originally imposed because we had made no progress with Korea on the GATT multi-fibre arrangement; the Koreans had taken a tough line, and it was not possible to reach agreement. Moreover, the imposition of import restrictions, which these were, inevitably causes disruption to trade and traders.

Exports (Guarantee Bonding)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Trade why he is refusing to make available the guarantees to British firms on export orders of less than £2 million which he provides to similar orders exceeding that amount; and what further steps he will take to help the securing of such orders.

Mr. Deakins: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the ECGD's new scheme for guaranteeing performance bonds. The limit was reduced from £20 million to £2 million in June, and business under negotiation since then is fully engaging the resources which can be made available. I believe that the commercial bonding market can normally deal with bonds required for orders under £2 million; but nevertheless the scheme will be kept under review in the light of growing experience.

Mr. Allaun: Is it not daft to risk losing orders for exports up to £2 million merely

because they are under that sum? Would it not be sensible to offer the services of some accountants and thereby save the jobs of thousands of workers? Moreover, would not orders for under £2 million require less investigation and less risk than would orders above that figure?

Mr. Deakins: If my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member has evidence of the exclusion of orders under £2 million being a serious problem, I am certainly prepared to look at it urgently. I am satisfied that the existing commercial bonding market should normally be able to provide bonds for smaller contracts entered into by exporters without the need for special ECGD support. Where the market will not do this, it is usually because the contract is considered to be beyond the exporter's technical and financial capacity. In that case it is possible that, exercising its normal underwriting judgment, the ECGD would be unable to assist.

Mr. Hal Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not a question of orders worth £2 million overall, but of whether it is possible to include components which separately, cost less than £2 million, but which together comprise an order whose total value exceeds £2 million? My constituents have made representations to his Department about the supply of parts to the Ontario hydro scheme. Will he take another look at this matter?

Mr. Deakins: I shall have a look at the case the hon. Member has raised; it has not yet come to my desk.

Motor Cars

Mr. Les Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a further statement on motor car exports and imports.

Mr. Shore: In the first nine months of this year, import penetration of the United Kingdom car market was 33 per cent. compared with 26·5 per cent. in the corresponding period in 1974. During January-September 1975 exports of passenger motor cars was £381·1 million compared with imports of £384·2 million. This compared with the corresponding period of 1974 of exports of £317·7 million and imports of £256·4 million.
During the same period, the positive contribution to the balance of payments


by the motor vehicle industry as a whole has increased substantially.

Mr. Huckfield: I welcome that information, but does my right hon. Friend know that some of us recognise that the subject of import controls on cars is complex, especially in view of the application of the United Autoworkers to the American International Trade Commission with allegations of the dumping of British cars? Does he realise that the problems of imports is aggravated by a possible last minute rush by importers who fear that controls will be introduced? Does he not agree that exports would be rather more significant if an improved contribution were made by the American multi-national corporations based in this country?

Mr. Shore: The situation regarding imports and exports in the British car industry is complex. My hon. Friend is right in recognising that we have a favourable balance in the car trade with the United States of America. We import very little and export about £80 million worth of cars a year. There is a problem and a danger of anti-dumping action being taken by the United States authorities. We certainly do not want that to happen.
The policies of the international car companies in the United Kingdom are a matter of considerable importance in terms of not only general employment and investment, but any restrictions by the parent companies on the marketing arrangements of their subsidiaries. This is a subject that various Governments have discussed with the major United States motor car manufacturers, and assurances have been given that there would not be objectionable restrictions.
As I have said on so many other occasions, the degree of penetration achieved by imports this year is too high. It is up to the industry, both employees and management, with, I hope, the help of the British consumer, to see that the balance is changed.

Mr. Shersby: Is the Secretary of State aware of the serious concern about the

imports of motor cars from Russia, Poland and Czechoslovakia? Does he think his statements on dumping have either increased or diminished the imports of motor cars from those countries?

Mr. Shore: I do not think that we should dismiss the importance of any particular source of supply, but the hon. Member must see this matter in perspective. I believe that 1·3 per cent of vehicles are coming from Eastern Europe. I am more concerned about the 33 per cent. coming from Western Europe and Japan.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. Friend's Department is considering selective import controls for the motor car and other industries. Is he aware, however, that there is a type of import control that the consumer can exercise, and that is to buy British? If we did that for cars and other products, not only should we be helping the balance of payments, but solving the problems of unemployment and inflation. We do not want to export unemployment, but we certainly do not want to import it.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend speaks with great force and relevance on this subject. There is an awful lot that the people of this country can do for themselves if only they have the will and the sense to do it.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Scottish Electricity Boards) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Ordered,
That the draft Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Electricity Boards) Order 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Ordered,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Ordered,
That the legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 4) Regulations 1975 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMAS (GIFT OF A MACE)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That Mr. Tom Pendry and Mr. William Shelton have leave of absence to present on behalf of this House a Mace to the House of Assembly of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
The House will remember that on 18th June this year it approved the presentation of an independence gift to the Bahamas. The motion today, if approved, gives leave of absence to a small delegation to present the gift on our behalf.
The House may wish to know that the composition of the delegation has been arranged with you, Mr. Speaker, and that it will be accompanied by Mr. Ryle, a Clerk of this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION

3.35 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1974–75, on European Secondary Legislation (House of Commons Paper No. 294).

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), but I have selected the amendments, in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) at the bottom of page 12661 of the Order Paper, to the Motion dealing with Standing Orders.
If it suits the convenience of the House I propose that we should have one debate on all the Standing Orders, which are as follows:
That Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) be amended as follows:—
Line 17, after 'provides', insert
'and proceedings on Commission Documents'.
Line 43, at end insert
'In this paragraph, and in Standing Orders No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees), No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) and No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c), "Commission Documents" means draft proposals by the Commission of the European Economic Community for secondary legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers'.
That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees) be amended as follows:—
Line 8, after 'instruments', insert:
or Commission Documents as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).'.
That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) be amended as follows:—
Line 12, after 'instruments', insert:
'or Commission Documents as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).'.
That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments) be amended as follows:—
Line 3, after 'Instruments', insert 'etc.'.
Line 5, after 'instruments', insert:
'or Commission Documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business))'.
Line 23, at end insert:
'or
(iii) notice has been given of a motion relating to a Commission Document.'.
Line 27, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.
Line 35, after second 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.
Line 37, after 'instrument)', insert '(or Commission Document)'.
Line 47, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.
Line 50, after '3(ii)', insert 'or 3(iii)'.
Line 52, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.
Line 55, after 'thereon;', insert:
'and, in the case of a motion relating to a Commission Document, where an amendment is offered to that question, the question on that amendment'.
At the end of the debate I shall allow the hon. Member for Newham, South formally to move his amendments and there can be Divisions if necessary.

Mr. Short: In asking the House to take note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure on European Secondary Legislation, I must first thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for the work which they put in between November last and March this year on preparing their report. The new Session will be upon us very soon and I have brought forward today proposals to amend Standing Orders in respect of a number of matters discussed by the Procedure Committee.
Before turning to the Select Committee's report, I should like to make a general comment. In the White Paper "Report on Renegotiation" (Cmnd. 6003) we accepted the need to make the arrangements for scrutiny and debate of proposals for EEC secondary legislation more effective. A great deal has been done already to make these arrangements work—as much as and probably more than in any other member State of the Community. The number of EEC documents deposited in the House since May 1974 when the Scrutiny Committee was set up is well over 900. On each of these, except for a few self-explanatory factual reports, the Government Departments

concerned have prepared detailed explanatory memoranda which have been approved and, again with a few exceptions, signed by Ministers for the use of hon. Members and the Scrutiny Committee.
On 16 occasions Ministers have attended the Scrutiny Committee to give evidence on proposals before the Council of Ministers. Every month the House has been given a statement and the opportunity to ask questions on the business going before the Council in the following month. Finally, on 24 occasions Ministers have come to the House to explain the line they are proposing to take on particular proposals in negotiations in the Council and to hear the views of hon. Members in debate. The Government, like the Scrutiny Committee and other hon. Members who take a particular interest in these matters, have put a great deal of effort into making the parliamentary scrutiny arrangements work. However, we are still rather feeling our way and we recognise that there is scope for further improvement. That is why we are proposing these changes today.
I come now to the recommendations of the Select Committee. One matter to which the Select Committee on Procedure has drawn attention is the arrangements made for the consideration of EEC documents on the Floor of the House. The Select Committee refers in paragraphs 20 to 22 to the limitations on the time made available for EEC debates and in particular the number of these debates which have taken place after 10 o'clock at the end of our normal business. Of course, this applies also to our own United Kingdom secondary legislation. There has also been need this Session to devote a great deal of time to other EEC business more directly related to renegotiation and the referendum.
It may interest the House to know that this Session some 67 hours have been spent on European affairs, including 11 days when they have been the main business. I recognise the importance of finding a time for these debates commensurate with their importance. I have taken note of the Select Committee's suggestions for the use of the six days per Session which we and the Opposition have undertaken to devote to EEC debates.
The Procedure Committee has criticised the absence of any provision in the procedure for the consideration of EEC business to ensure that the Question is put at the end of such business so that the House can have the opportunity to embody its views in a resolution. Indeed, on occasion the debate has stood adjourned without the Question being put.
I recognise that this situation is not an entirely satisfactory one. The Select Committee on Procedure has provided the House with a suggested remedy for this in the extension of Standing Order No. 3, and in particular paragraph 1(b) of that Order, to cover proceedings on Commission documents. The Government agree to this recommendation in the interests of improving the scrutiny arrangements. The necessary amendment to Standing Order No. 3(1)(b) is on the Order Paper for decision today and I commend it to the House. In effect it would give motions on EEC documents the same treatment as is given to affirmative resolutions on domestic statutory instruments.
I now turn to the recommendation in paragraphs 36 to 43 of the report that Standing Orders should be amended to provide for the appointment of a Standing Committee for the consideration of some EEC documents which have been recommended by the Select Committee for debate in Standing Committee. As the Procedure Committee recognises, I submitted this proposal to it on behalf of the Government and it was supported by a number of other right hon. and hon. Members who gave evidence. The model here as I see it is the procedure which we have evolved for our own statutory instruments which is set out in Standing Order No. 73A.
I am sure the House will agree that the introduction of that Standing Order, which provides for statutory instruments to be referred to Standing Committees for consideration, has been a very valuable addition to the House's procedures. This Session, for example, about four-fifths of all affirmative resolutions on statutory instruments have been taken upstairs in Committee. The saving of time on the Floor has been the equivalent of about 20 sittings. It seems eminently sensible, and I am glad that the Procedure Committee has endorsed this proposal,

to make similar provision for discussing some EEC documents.
As I have said, the Scrutiny Committee may on occasion, in reporting on an EEC proposal, suggest that it would be an appropriate matter for debate in Standing Committee. I want to make it absolutely clear, however, that it would, as in the case of statutory instruments, be for the Government, in consultation through the usual channels, to decide whether to table a motion in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House.
In practice, some of the debates recommended by the Scrutiny Committee are bound to be taken on the Floor of the House. Obvious candidates, I should have thought, for committal to Standing Committee would include, first, debates on documents at an early stage which may attract further debate at a later stage; second, debates on proposals having no legislative effect; third, proposals for legislative instruments identified as being of lesser importance but still worthy of debate; and, fourth, Private Members' motions. This would usefully extend the range of procedures open to the House for dealing with these documents and would in particular provide for discussion of EEC proposals of special interest to private Members. Whilst the Standing Committee would be appointed in the normal way, any hon. Member would be able to attend and speak, though not to vote, in the Committee.
To implement this proposal, I have tabled amendments designed to bring Commission documents within the scope of Standing Order No. 73A. If these proposals are accepted, the procedure for referring Commission documents to a Standing Committee, the scope for hon. Members to object to the reference, by standing in their place, to the composition and procedure of the Standing Committee, the form of their discussion and report and the subsequent decision of the House would all be identical with that for our own statutory instruments, with which hon. Members are familiar.
I should explain that the inclusion of Commission documents in the scope of Standing Order No. 73A would mean departing in two fairly minor respects from the recommendations of the Select


Committee on Procedure. First, the Procedure Committee has suggested that there should be unlimited time for discussion of EEC documents in Standing Committee, although there is an hour and a half time limit in our Standing Orders for considering statutory instruments other than those relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, which, I think, have two and a half hours. As the many hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees know, there is considerable pressure on Committee time as well as on hon. Members' time.
In the Government's view, the time limit of one and a half hours which we apply to statutory instruments would be adequate for the Standing Committee discussion of the kinds of proposal which are likely to be referred upstairs which I have just mentioned. I mean not the ones of first importance but those of secondary importance, because in the main that is what they would be. We have accordingly made no special provision in the proposed amendments to Standing Order No. 73A, and I suggest that we treat these in the same way as our own secondary legislation, particularly as these are of secondary importance.
Secondly the Select Committee, in paragraph 42(a) of its report, has recommended that, unlike Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, the new Standing Committees should consider EEC documents on a substantive motion—for example, to take note of or approve the documents, which should be amendable in Committee.
The Government's view, which I am sure will commend itself to the House, is that the statutory instrument model is the right one to follow, and that a formal motion
That the Committee has considered the document
is the appropriate basis for debate in Standing Committee.
There is a very important principle involved here. It is the House as a whole to which the Government are responsible for the conduct of affairs, and it is the House as a whole which alone can charge the Government to take one course or another on pain of withdrawing its confidence—not a Committee, but the House as a whole. It would be quite inappropriate, and contrary to the precedents to

which the House has adhered in establishing other Standing Committees, to delegate the authority which belongs to the whole House to a small and inevitably less than representative number of hon. Members in Committee.
On the other hand, it is important that the House should be able to express its views on EEC proposals recommended by the Scrutiny Committee for consideration. The amendments to Standing Order No. 73A which have been tabled would accordingly allow for a substantive motion to be tabled here in the House before the documents are referred to Standing Committee, for amendments to be tabled and for this motion to be put to the whole House without further debate when the Standing Committee has reported that it has considered it. Therefore, the Standing Committee could consider a substantive motion and amendments which had been tabled to it and could report back to the House that it had considered it, but the vote on that motion and on the amendments would take place in the House itself without debate.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Since my right hon. Friend has rightly emphasised the responsibility of Ministers to the whole House, will he also confirm the Government's undertaking that, where the Scrutiny Committee has recommended consideration by the House of a legislative instrument, the Government will not assent to the passage of such an instrument in the EEC until this House has had an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Short: That undertaking has already been given on behalf of the Government. It has been quite firmly given by me and, I think, by a Foreign Office Minister as well. I hope I have made clear that there would be an opportunity to table amendments and to vote on them in the House without Division in the Committee but with a Division, if required, in the House itself.
We have added a provision to ensure that any amendment to the motion which you, Mr. Speaker, might select would also be put to the House. Although this diverges to some extent from the report, it achieves exactly the same result. The House would be able to make its views known.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify a point in what he has said, which he will agree was rather complicated? I understand him to have said that before an instrument is referred to the Standing Committee there could be tabled a motion—and amendments thereto—which, when it was reported back by the Standing Committee, would then be decided forthwith by the House. Do I take it that those are the only circumstances in which such a motion would be tabled, or would it also be possible, when the Standing Committee had reported in its formal manner, of course, for a motion then to be tabled, with or without amendments? The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is quite possible that after studying the proceedings in the Standing Committee hon. Members might wish to offer for decision amendments which would not necessarily have occurred to them before the instrument was sent to the Standing Committee. I hope that my point is clear.

Mr. Short: Without notice of that question, I think I am right in saying that it would not be possible to table a motion afterwards, but it would be possible to do it before the instrument was referred to the Standing Committee. [Interruption.] Quite clearly, it would be possible to do it before the debate took place.

Mr. A. P. Costain: With regard to this unusual procedure of a vote without debate, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the House will not be asked to vote until the Official Report of the Committee proceedings is available?

Mr. Short: I think that that would be reasonable, but I repeat that any hon. Member may attend the Committee.
Before leaving the subject of the proposed amendments to Standing Orders I should say a brief word about the procedures for the reference to Standing Committee of Private Member's motions on EEC documents—or EEC Prayers, as it were. At present there is no effective provision for a private Member to draw to the House's attention an EEC proposal which is not recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee but in which he has a particular interest, other than perhaps a half-hour Adjournment debate.
The Procedure Committee has recommended that provision should be made

to enable Private Member's motions on Commission documents to be referred to Standing Committee on the analogy of Prayers against statutory instruments. The amendments tabled to Standing Order No. 73 implement this recommendation. On the analogy of Prayers, however, the Government cannot guarantee that time will always be found for debate of all such motions. Nevertheless, I trust that this new procedure will be of value to hon. Members, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Michael English: Although you did not select my amendment on the principle, Mr. Speaker, may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment at some point on the discrepancy between the House of Lords and the House of Commons terms of reference? As I understand it, the Select Committee in this House, and therefore all the rest of us, can consider only Commission documents. My right hon. Friend has spoken of both Commission and EEC documents, and they are not entirely the same. I understand that the House of Lords can consider all EEC documents, including those emanating from the Council. This is a vital matter, as matters emanating from the Council at present are those relating to political union. It would be rather odd if the House of Lords could consider political union while we were restricted to matters of transport and the price of butter.

Mr. Short: The last thing I would attempt to do at this moment is to interpret the Standing Orders of the Committee of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), but I shall consider my hon. Friend's point.
I turn to the Select Committee's recommendations in paragraphs 17 and 18 concerning the timing of debates and the provision of information to the House on amendments of substance which affect the United Kingdom. The Procedure Committee's recommendation in this area ties up with the suggestions put forward by the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation in its Second Special Report for the current Session—and the same points have been made by a Select Committee in another place.
What these various recommendations together amount to is that when EEC proposals have been deposited in the


House, and recommended for debate by the Scrutiny Committee, the debate should normally take place at a fairly early stage in the discussion of the proposals in the Council of Ministers, so that the House has an opportunity to put its views to the Government while matters are still at a formative stage. Both Committees recommend that thereafter the Government should, before the proposals go forward for final adoption, inform the House of any substantial amendments of interest to the United Kingdom which have been made in the course of discussion so that the proposals as amended can be subjected to a further scrutiny and, if so recommended, a second debate.
This proposal for two-stage scrutiny and debate would not call for any amendment of the formal procedures of the House. But there are serious practical difficulties to be overcome in providing the House with the sort of information on which second-stage scrutiny would be based. The proceedings of the Council are akin to international negotiations. Bargaining points are often made and withdrawn, and reservations are maintained on particular matters from one side or another, often up to a late stage in the Council's deliberations. It is not therefore always possible to identify amendments which have been agreed.
Moreover, negotiations in the Council are often confidential between the member States, and must remain so if compromise between purely national interests is to be achieved. Uncertainty about whether parliamentary scrutiny procedures are complete can be an added difficulty in negotiation in the Council. Furthermore, the provision of information on the up-to-date state of proposals which have already been through the scrutiny process will significantly increase the burden of paper work flowing between Government Departments and the House, at a time when we are all looking for economies—in money, time and manpower.
Notwithstanding all these difficulties, the Government accept that two-stage scrutiny will be justified in respect of those proposals which involve major policy developments. We accept that it would be appropriate to provide the House with the necessary information on amendments to such proposals agreed in the course of Council discussions in such a

form as the confidentiality of Council proceedings permits. I think the House will recognise that this partial acceptance of the Committee's recommendation represents a major step forward in our scrutiny arrangements.
I turn briefly to the recommendations which the Procedure Committee has made in paragraphs 8 to 10 of its report about the presentation of documents. The Committee's principal recommendation is that consideration should be given to the practicability of laying Commission documents upon the table as Command Papers. The Committee recognises that the practical difference which this would make over the present arrangements by which documents are deposited informally in the Vole Office is very small. There would appear to be some disadvantages from the House's point of view in extending the concept of Command Papers so widely as to embrace all the documents emanating from the Commission. I am giving the matter consideration in consultation with the House authorities, but I would not hold out much hope of major improvements in the presentation of these documents.
The Procedure Committee has also recommended the publication of a periodical list, similar to the Public Bill list, showing the progress of each Commission document on its progress from presentation to the House to its approval by the Council. I can see some merit in this suggestion if it would be of real use to hon. Members. If such a list is to be of use, however, it must be kept to manageable proportions. I believe that a list containing 700 items will not be of much help to anyone. We are discussing this proposal with the House authorities. I shall be glad to hear the views of hon. Members as to its likely value.
Finally, I turn to the question of the budget. The Procedure Committee's recommendations about the way in which the House should consider the Community budget are closely tied up with the problems arising from the Community's own budgetary timetable. In the debate on the 1975 Community budget on 4th July my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explained that proposals for altering the Community's budgetary timetable were under discussion in the Community. The difficulties we encountered this year, to which the Scrutiny


Committee rightly drew attention in its Third Special Report, will no doubt strengthen the case for changes in the timetable, and we are pursuing this matter. But it does not seem to us to be sensible to make final decisions on procedure until the timetable question is sorted out. There seems to be little need for any change in the terms of reference of the Scrutiny Committees. The House will debate the 1976 budget on Thursday of this week, when the timetable aspects can be pursued.
It remains for me once more to thank the Select Committee for the excellent work it has done on the subject of European secondary legislation and to commend to the House the amendments to the Standing Orders which I have tabled so that these necessary improvements in our procedures for considering European Community documents can be made without further delay.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to intervene at this stage. Those on both sides of the House who are interested in this subject will wish to thank the Leader of the House for the careful consideration he has given to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure and will also wish to thank him for coming forward with a series of recommendations to facilitate this work in the House of Commons. On behalf of the Scrutiny Committee I say that we are grateful to him for what he has done. There are, however, certain points which still give cause for concern following the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and the amendments which have been tabled. I will define what these are.
In answer to business questions last week, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the form of the debate today, he said,
I made it clear last week that this debate will be based on a number of motions to amend the standing orders in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee of which the hon. Member is a member."—[Official Report, 30th Oct., 1975; Vol. 898, c. 1765.]
The right hon. Gentleman has told us today that in a number of respects he has not been able to do that and that the

amendments tabled do not reflect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure. To some of these, at least, we shall need to give further attention. In some ways the basis of concern arises from the fact that the Leader of the House, in what he has said today, has continually equated secondary legislation as related to the European Community with statutory instruments as they relate to legislation, when in fact there is no good analogy.
The fact is that the only primary legislation in the Community sense is legislation referring to the treaties. All the rest is secondary legislation. That embraces an enormously wide range of subjects, including matters of the greatest substance which certainly if treated as domestic matters by the House would be treated to all intents and purposes as primary legislation. There is a danger in using that analogy and drawing from it the inference which the Lord President has drawn from it in bringing forward these amendments. It seems that because of the nature and scope of the legislation involved there is an importance in looking with new eyes at the nature of the legislation going through the Community and at how this House is to deal with it.
There is the important and difficult problem of reconciling the traditional methods of handling matters in this House with the quite new—to us—system of legislative activity which is prevalent in the Community. It is a new system not only in the sense that the constitutional position is different in that we have groups of Ministers meeting together without having to subject themselves to the duress of parliamentary scrutiny of the details of their legislation and able then to enact legislation without that degree of democratic control, but new also in that the very form of the legislation appears to a layman such as myself to be more intelligible than our legislation, though clearly less precise. It says what it means in terms which are perhaps open to more doubt with the result that there is a need for greater interpretation by the European Court.
We have, therefore, a basically different form and a different constitutional method. We need, therefore, to replace our own system of meticulous revision and improvement of legislation, to which


the House is accustomed, by a method of influencing those who will enact without the form of democratic scrutiny to which we are accustomed. It is this reconciliation of the different methods of handling matters that is the all-important issue in this debate since it concerns how we are to cope in the future with a wide range of Community activity.
I do not resent the difference. I find that the proposition of bringing to bear the force of influence on Ministers at the point when they make decisions, but early enough to influence their minds before they are crystallised and made up, to be perhaps just as useful and ultimately as effective as our system, when we wait until Ministers have got into a deep-rooted frame of mind which nothing will shift and then try to amend details of the legislation. I do not object to the method. I simply say that it needs a new and intensive look at the way in which it is handled.
The Scrutiny Committees have been formed and the undertakings to which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) referred have reasonably been re-emphasised by the Lord President. For that I am grateful. After a lot of initial difficulty these Committees are now doing the task intended for them and are, I hope, rendering the right service to the House in bringing before it those matters which seem to be important. As the Lord President has inferred, the deficiency has lain in the methods which the House could bring to bear in looking at these matters and then in seeking to use that influence to impress upon Ministers the anxieties and concerns which were felt. There have been all the objections of timing and form of debates, to which the Select Committee on Procedure has given careful attention.
The acid test of the Government's proposals will lie in their ability to reconcile the need for careful, ongoing examination and the creation of an ability to influence the minds of Ministers with a totally different form of legislation presented in a different way and subject to different constitutional methods. It is on those scores that the House will wish to judge what the Lord President has put before us today. That is the kernel of the problem—whether we are to have a means whereby we can influence and affect the course of legislation by the proposals that

the right hon. Gentleman has made rather than the technicalities of the considerations that he has brought to our notice.
I am bound to say that although the right hon. Gentleman has given us considerable satisfaction through the amendments to the Standing Orders and the subsequent points made in his speech, there are still issues which leave me dissatisfied. I will mention these to him. It seems that the analogy with the statutory instruments consideration has led the right hon. Gentleman into a form of arrangement which still puts the weight entirely on the Government side rather than on the side of the House in trying to deal with these matters. It is the Government who are retaining the initiative in every respect. It is the House which has somehow or other to fit into the rather narrow straitjacket with which we are presented to try to express our opinion effectively.
I refer particularly to the form of motion and to the question of the duration of debates. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a careful explanation of the reason for the adoption of the form of motion. The truth is that a Standing Committee able only to discuss legislation but unable to express any view except that it has considered that legislation represents an unsatisfactory form of scrutiny. I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he will find great difficulty in attracting Members of Parliament—who are grossly overworked, as he says—to give attention to such things when they can make no expression of any valid kind. Hon. Members of such a Committee will consider a matter and then hope to goodness that other hon. Members will read what they have considered. It is a highly doubtful procedure.
In its turn it makes most suspect this method of trying to get the House to use its sole discretion only at a point after that formal report has been made and in respect of amendments which, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, must have been tabled previously. I regard the Committee as conceived by the Lord President to be something of an emasculated operation. I doubt whether it will be the effective weapon we all hope it will be.
Referring to the duration of the debates, the Lord President thought that


one and a half hours was adequate for debate on matters of secondary importance, and he returned to his analogy of the statutory instrument. Does the Lord President think that the consultative document on the subject of the treatment of multinational companies in the Community, with all the ongoing effects that that may have in terms of the restrictions and stimulations which may be given to such corporations, is a secondary subject? It is a consultative document. It is not a practical piece of legislation. Therefore, in the Lord President's view, it comes in for treatment by the Standing Committee and not on the Floor of the House. The debate will be limited to one and a half hours. Who can discuss the future of an organisation and the legislation related to multinational companies in one and a half hours? That would be inadequate. The Lord President's interpretation of secondary importance is a dangerous misunderstanding more than anything else, and he should reconsider it. Otherwise the Standing Committee will be further emasculated and diminished in its usefulness to the House.
I make the same expression of concern about the time which seems to be allocated to debates on the Floor of the House under the terms of the amendment. Unless the Standing Order is suspended, debates on the Floor of the House would be limited to one and a half hours after 10 o'clock unless they began before 10 o'clock. In that case matters which form the kernel of the issues, the most important matters, would be limited to one and a half hour's debate at a late hour. We sought to get away from that. I am concerned about that. Perhaps the matter may be explained—I may have misinterpreted the amendments—in which case I shall be greatly relieved.
I commend the Lord President for what he said about secondary scrutiny and secondary review. His remarks about Private Members' motions removed from my mind an anxiety which I had before this debate started. Some rethinking is necessary on the issues to which I have referred. Otherwise we shall have another valueless organisation in the House not making a valid contribution to its working, and simply offering a

manoeuvre in dealing with the problems with which we are faced.
In view of the forthcoming attitude of the Lord President today, I feel sure that he will be prepared to consider my remarks. Otherwise we shall be obliged to complain bitterly about the inadequacy of treatment, which will cause dissatisfaction. The basis of our arrangements is sound and could so easily be brought into a meaningful method of examination and scrutiny of legislation.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful for the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). I well remember one of his earliest speeches in the House—of which he has been a Member as long as I—and my attempts to interrupt and disagree with him on that memorable occasion. We are not discussing a party matter. We are discussing a House of Commons matter. I agree with nearly everything that the right hon. Gentleman said, although I should like to emphasise some of his points, especially that of comparability with statutory instruments.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the accountability of Ministers. That is the heart of what we are trying to do. Ministers must account for themselves in Parliament as representatives of the executive to the representatives of the people. That is the heart of parliamentary democracy. Every Standing Order which we pass and operate must help to that end. That helps the Government in the long run, as unless they are in a position to be accountable they will not command the confidence of the people. That matter is equally important.
The accountability of Ministers is not clear. In paragraph 24 of its report the Select Committee indicated that if Ministers did not take to Brussels and render what the House said, they would act at their peril. That was the only reference to the subject which we could find. That is the way in which the procedure works now. Unfortunately we do not know what Ministers do in Brussels. We do not complain that the Council's proceedings are secret, but that may be part of the matter. The problem is that we do not have a final sanction such as that which is open to the House on domestic legislation.
The other major problem is the manner in which we are being asked to look at the motions. The Select Committee, of which I was a member, sat and brought out a report which was printed before the referendum, in May. We asked the Lord President to consider splitting this debate and the discussion of technical amendments. We know that amendments to Standing Orders are technical and difficult. However, we thought that it might be much better to obtain the general view of the House on the report before taking a view. The Lord President tabled the amendments but has departed from the recommendations of the Committee in two major respects. I deplore the fact that we are not able to consider these matters in two bites.
The second and more important point was also mentioned by the right hon. Member for Knutsford. On Thursday the Lord President, in reply to a question, said that he was tabling motions to implement the report of the Select Committee. However, this afternoon, for the first time, he said that in two important respects—the ability to table amendments and the question of the time limit—he was not following the Select Committee's recommendations. Those recommendations were important. They referred to two major matters. The Select Committee recommended that we should depart from the statutory instrument procedure. There is some difficulty here. My right hon. Friend may think that these are major changes, but it is clear from what was said that that view is not widely shared.
If the Lord President persists in moving these technical amendments as the next business, I invite him to consider whether some of his hon. Friends will support him on the supposition that he is moving the implementation of the Procedure Committee's report when he is manifestly not doing so, although he said that we could argue about it since it was important. Those two matters are very much to the point.
That brings me to the question of whether it is right to follow too closely the existing statutory instrument procedure. Our procedure under Standing Order 73A is relatively new. I believe that it has been in operation for 18

months, and we are not all necessarily familiar with it.
The main point is that the so-called secondary legislation documents of the European Community are not secondary. They are super-primary. If they are in sufficiently definitive form, they override our own legislation. In constitutional terms they are superior to any of our normal Bills, which go through a complex procedure. They are not inferior to Bills. That is the part played by statutory instruments.
Although I was not in a majority on the Committee, I doubted whether the analogy with statutory instruments was the right one. The Select Committee made specific recommendations. In paragraph 42(a) it recommended that
the Minister in charge of the business in the Standing Committee should be entitled to make whatever Motion he considered suitable. Motions to take note or to approve, or to do either with reservations, would obviously be appropriate; there might well be other forms suitable in different cases. They also recommended that the Motion should be open to amendment.
That is the Select Committee's recommendation, and those of us who have been involved in European secondary legislation see the great usefulness of that recommendation.
We know that the Lord President has in mind to move batches of documents to go to the Standing Committee. The Committee will wish to come to an opinion on each document or perhaps on a group of documents. The Committee may say that certain documents should have further consideration or be debated in the House. Under the Lord President's proposals, that would not be admissible. Therefore, in the one and a half hours available, the Committee would not be able to do even what we could do on the Floor and it could not do the work of the House.
The legislation would not be "committed" in the real sense of the word, to the Standing Committee, which has to do a specific job and report to the House. The Lord President is denying the Committee the tools for the job in that it can only discuss the legislation. A specific vote cannot be taken, specific amendments cannot be moved and a specific resolution cannot be reached. That is the first major lacuna in the proposals.
The second major lacuna is in respect of time. The wording of the Select Committee in paragraph 42(b) is even stronger:
There may be a justification for these limitations in respect of Statutory Instruments, but your Committee can see no reason for applying them to European legislation.
That is an under-statement. There is every reason for not doing so. The Committee may get its teeth into the subject with the help of the Scrutiny Committee's report and may wish to adjourn for two or three days to get facts or for its members to consult outside bodies to find out how the legislation will affect people. That is what we do on Standing Committees. For it to deal, for example, with lorry weights in one and a half hours would be impossible. I ask my right hon. Friend to concede that "minor changes" is not a happy description of the changes he is proposing in the Select Committee's recommendations.
Although I am a member of the Select Committee, in my view the recommendations do not go far enough. They provide a route back to the House but not a satisfactory one. I said so in Committee but I was not in the majority. When the Standing Committee has voted and come to a conclusion, if necessary there should be an opportunity for a debate in the House even if only for half an hour. That proposal is not included in the Select Committee's recommendations or in my right hon. Friend's version of them.
The general recommendation that EEC documents could be tabled as House of Commons documents is valuable. Difficulties might arise, but if EEC documents which have legal force in this country cannot appear in the Journal of the House something is surely wrong. The same applies to the lists. My right hon. Friend said of recommendation (2) that lists of 700 documents would not be helpful, but I am afraid that I have to disagree with him. Without lists, how are we to know what is going on? I know that that may cause staffing problems, but a strip index of the kind we use for our own documents in the Library would be helpful.
A similar procedure might be adopted for lists of up-to-date amendments of

EEC documents. On one occasion I remember a long series of points of order arising on whether a document which was before the House was up to date. We found that it was not. The gentleman in the Chair at that time changed the rule on the selection of amendments because it was proved that amendments had been made to the documents before us. I hope that more efficient arrangements can be made for amendments.
I had hoped that it would not be necessary for me to refer to my amendments which appear on the Order Paper. I still hope that it will be unnecessary for me to move them formally. I shall not need to do so if my right hon. Friend will consider not moving his proposals. If some of my hon. Friends who are not in the Chamber support my right hon. Friend in the Lobby, they may be a little surprised afterwads to discover what they have supported. Although my amendments are not altogether satisfactory, they are an attempt to repair the damage and put into effect some of the Select Committee's recommendations. Instead of interlarding the amendments into Standing Order No. 73A as my right hon. Friend proposes, I have provided two new paragraphs, Nos. 74A and 75A. The effect of the amendments is to make possible a debate of more than one-and-a-half hours in Committee on a motion which is amendable. A report would come forward to the House after voting in the normal way.
My amendments do not entirely meet the case because we need a completely new Standing Order dealing specifically with European legislation. It is not right to include in Standing Order No. 73A matters relating to statutory instruments which are sub-primary and EEC legislation which is super-primary. I hope that it will be possible to agree on a new Standing Order dealing only with European legislation.
It has been said that this nation does not have a written constitution. At present there is disturbance in the country about parliamentary democracy, the reputation of the House and how we go about our business. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has some thoughts on that subject. I therefore hope that he will think carefully before pressing on us Standing Orders which do not even put


into effect the Select Committee's recommendations. The Standing Orders of the House are, in effect, part of our constitution. They safeguard the liberty of the subject and the rights of back benchers who are the representatives of the people as against the Government. We have Standing Orders, "Erskine May" and the Treaty of Rome. If my right hon. Friend presses his proposals to a Division, we shall be changing what little written constitution we have. We may have to do that at some time, but it is not right to press amendments which were tabled only on Friday and the implications of which were outlined by my right hon. Friend less than an hour ago.
I am sure that all of us, including my right hon. Friend, have the same object in view. We want to make the procedure of the House for dealing with EEC documents as efficient and as effective as we can. That is common ground between my hon. Friends the Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and Farnworth (Mr. Roper), the right hon. Member for Knutsford and myself. We may differ on merits but on matters of procedure we are at one.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I recognise that the subject we are debating is extremely important. Indeed, my constituents talk about little else than the way in which the House deals with European legislation, and I have long queues of people at my surgery all wishing to express their view on the matter. The issue I wish to raise is not to do with Standing Orders, because no amount of tinkering will alleviate the recognised inadequacies of our proceedure for dealing with European legislation.
I believe—and I want this on the record—that the only way we shall resolve the problem of European legislation is by a directly-elected Parliament for Europe, a Parliament which, I hope, will be more representative of the will and wishes of the people than this one is. The curtain will finally fall on the longest-runing farce in the West End when it stops playing to itself and realises that the disenchanted audience left many years ago.
I therefore welcome the assurance by the Leader of the House some weeks ago about the setting up of a Committee

to review the whole procedure of the House. I believe that part of that Committee's remit will inevitably have to be to go over the ground over which we are now going—the relationship of this House to European legislation and the way it deals with it. Therefore, I suspect that what we are doing today is tinkering, tending to fiddle while Rome burns, and that everything we say and do today will again become the subject of debate and discussion when the right hon. Gentleman's Committee ultimately reports, which I hope will be very soon.
The Report of the Select Committee shows clearly that we are dealing in an inadequate way with EEC legislation. I said in my submission to the Select Committee that the only place where real control of legislation can be effectively exercised is at the level where it is initially drawn up and considered. I believe that this House will ignore at its peril the undemocratic and unrepresentative nature of both itself and the European Parliament as it exists. It will not be long before European laws will be challenged and flouted, as happened to recent laws emanating from this Chamber.
The authority of the House is undermined when two moribund and unrepresentative parties come and go like yo-yos between one election and the next and both completely ignore the rights of minorities in the country and in the House. Only when this House is representative will it be able with authority to exercise its right to scrutinise, amend and oppose legislation.
We have this year had a referendum on Europe. That referendum mandated the House to play its full part in Europe. It is not doing so. It does not even send a representative delegation to Strasbourg. It denies the minority parties their proper rights within that delegation. That is why I say that the House in what it is doing today is tending to fiddle while Rome burns.
I can only say, therefore, that, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support the Government's proposals in this matter but only because I believe that they are a temporary measure. I am certain that what the country will demand, and what the House will be debating, is a directly-elected Parliament for Europe so that the Parliament of


Europe can deal with its own legislation in a way which demonstrates that it has been directly elected by the people and is therefore representative of them.
That must be the ultimate aim of this Parliament. I believe that it is the only way in which European legislation can be satisfactorily dealt with. So long as we continue to bring before this House European legislation and couple with it the weight of legislation which the House has been asked to deal with over the last few years—and I do not blame any individual party for that, since I do not believe that the present Government's legislative programme has been any greater than that of their predecessors—we are trying to do too much in too small a place.
What we should be doing is debating a directly-elected Parliament for Europe to deal with European legislation while this Parliament deals with legislation appropriate to it. I only ask that, when this House decides to support a directly-elected Parliament for Europe, as I believe is inevitable, we ensure that that European Parliament is more representative of the will of the people than is this one.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) took up the limited time that we have for this important debate to deal with his pet subject. It would have been more appropriate on other occasions. Whatever the future, we have a duty to find effective ways of dealing with this legislation now, legislation which is of great importance to our constituents.
We are considering the first of the four Reports which the Select Committee, of which I am chairman, has completed this Session. The Committee started work when there was a huge backlog of such documents, and, as has been pointed out, when we were in the run-up period to the referendum. I am glad to say that the backlog has been disposed of. I believe that it is tribute to the members of the Committee and to the Select Committee system that while the membership contained, from both sides of the House, hon. Members who were very strong protagonists in the controversy, that situation did not intrude in any way into the Committee's deliberations, although, of course,

the issues were never far from the minds of any of us. The Report shows few scars of the strains we were suffering at the time.
The Select Committee was concerned with two matters—first, to secure improvements in the consideration given to the large number of documents coming from Brussels, which, as we say, could be as many as 700 in any single year, and, secondly, to reduce the pressure on the time taken on the Floor of the House.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated, the Select Committee, in pursuing these objectives, proposed the setting up of a Standing Committee similar to that of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. The Scrutiny Committee would recommend a third category of document, some of the documents which are already discussed on the Floor of the House would be referred to that Committee, and some documents which are not discussed at all now would get discussion in it. The Committee could be attended by back benchers who would have the right to speak but not to vote. The Committee would take a great deal of pressure off the Floor of the House and enlarge the opportunities of back benchers in dealing with these documents.
As in the case of the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, there would be a blocking mechanism whereby 20 Members could ensure that the documents concerned stayed on the Floor of the House. I congratulate the Government on accepting this recommendation although, as my right hon. Friend has said, they have departed from our recommendations in two other respects. The first is from the Committee's recommendation that the new Standing Committee should be able to debate amendable motions—in other words, to have an expression of opinion. The second is in the Government's proposals for an automatic closure of one and a half hours on the work of the Committee.
Some members of the Select Committee will find it difficult to go along with the Government's decision in this respect. I take perhaps a less tragic view than does my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on this. It is understandable that the Government should wish to treat these documents in


the same way as statutory instruments. There is validity in the view that, if the Government are to be instructed, they should be instructed by more than what could, perhaps, be no more than eight Members and perhaps the casting vote of the Chairman of the Committee. But that is as far as I can go, as it is at this point that the analogy with the statutory instruments procedure breaks down.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) intervened to ask about the procedure on return to the House. On return to the House, the original trigger motion could be moved—although I agree with my right hon. Friend in his interpretation of his amendments. No motion other than the original trigger motion could be moved—but that motion could be amended. We are therefore left with the situation that hon. Members could move, amend and vote on a motion but could not debate its proposals. That is an unsatisfactory position.
In the case of an automatic closure after one and a half hours, there is an analogy with the statutory instruments procedure, although I believe that the passage of time would have enabled us to discuss these matters with less passion than over the past few months and with less suspicion, and the result would probably have been similar to that in the statutory instruments procedure, where most of the statutory instruments are disposed of in perhaps less than half an hour. The Government should look again at that proposal.
The Committee was concerned to facilitate the work of hon. Members in dealing with what it described as the "vast and voluminous" papers coming from Brussels and made a number of suggestions to which my right hon. Friend did not refer. It said that the papers should be in standard format, numbered systematically, so that they can be clearly identified, listed and indexed, and that they should have explanatory notes giving an indication of their genesis. Also, an attempt should be made to make the documents available to the public in time for them to make representations to hon. Members before decisions are taken. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to consider those suggestions seriously—the Committee did not feel that they should be put in the form of firm recommendations

—but I hope that something like this can be done.
My right hon. Friend talked about the second stage scrutiny. He did not make it clear—perhaps he will later—who will take the initiative in dealing with this matter, whether the Scrutiny Committee, the Standing Committee or the Government or whether it will be open to any other hon. Member. As the right hon. Member for Down, South made clear, the document coming back on its return visit may be very different in every respect from the one originally considered by the House, the Standing Committee or, earlier, the Scrutiny Committee.
I express my appreciation to the members of the Committee for their support. I would especially like to thank the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Willcox, for the enormous amount of work he did and for his help to me, as Chairman, to the Committee as a whole and to individual hon. Members who consulted him about various problems. I am most grateful to him. No Committee could have been better served.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have caught your eye immediately after the speech of the right hon. Member for Dart-ford (Mr. Irving), who was Chairman of the Select Committee of whose Report we are taking note. It was, he knows, a matter of personal disappointment to me that I was not able to remain a member of the Committee, but I have been greatly honoured by the attention which the Committee gave to such propositions as I laid before it by way of evidence.
This debate takes place upon an agreed basis. It is an agreed basis which was referred to earlier in the debate and was confirmed as agreed by the Leader of the House. It is the proposition, which has been accepted, I think, by all parties for nearly two years now, that Her Majesty's Ministers should not assent in the Council of Ministers to changes in the law of this country which have not been approved, in some form or other, in some way or other, by this House, except in case of emergency or great urgency.
I still am of the opinion, as I always have been, that this rule, this basic agreement, is of such fundamental constitutional importance that it ought not simply to rest


upon ministerial assurances but ought to be given the precision and the permanence of a resolution of this House, which can then itself be dovetailed into the Standing Orders which give effect to it.
There would be this additional advantage of such a resolution being made part of our constitution—the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was right in saying that in a sense the Standing Orders of this House are a part of our constitution—namely, that it would ensure, first of all, that any substantial amendments made after prior consideration of documents came back to this House upon the initiative of the Government and, second, that subsequent approval was obtained in cases of emergency or urgency when assent had to be given by Her Majesty's Minister to changes in the law not previously approved by this House.
Still, what we are considering this afternoon is not the fundamental principle, which is broadly agreed though not yet enshrined, but improvement in the ways in which we can best give effect to it. I believe that the Leader of the House helped the House in doing this by tabling the actual amendments to Standing Orders which in his view were required. That was very helpful and certainly enables hon. Members to sharpen their minds, but I hope that he will be persuaded before the end of the debate not to move some or all of his motions, so that he can take account of what is said in the debate. After all, as he said, we are almost at the end of a Session and there will be little loss of time for him or anyone else if a little more consideration is available for him and for others of the precise form in which we are to amend our Standing Orders.
There are three instruments which the House has available for giving—or, as the case may be, withholding—its approval of proposed changes in the law to be made in the Council of Ministers of the EEC.
The first is the Scrutiny Committee, the second is the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, as invoked by amendments of the sort that the Lord President has laid, and the third is the House itself. I should like to consider them in that order.
So far as the Select Committee is concerned, no problem arises. It seems to me to be generally accepted that, where the Scrutiny Committee, which is now working fairly smoothly and efficiently, does not report a proposal as requiring the further attention of the House, that proposal could very fairly be regarded, ipso facto, as carrying the approval of the House and calling for no further procedures.
Then we come to consider the Statutory Instruments Committee and to ask how far, and in what way, that Committee could best relieve the House while helping it to perform its function of giving or withholding approval on its part. It is when we envisage the Committee as doing that, as providing a kind of Committee stage in legislation, that we are forced to recognise that the Report of the Select Committee was wiser than the amendments to Standing Orders which we have before us.
Certainly I support the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and others in saying that there is no serious analogy between secondary legislation under United Kingdom statute and secondary legislation in the sense in which we speak of Community legislation.

Mr. Graham Page: There is a minor reservation, perhaps, on that, in that Northern Ireland statutory instruments come before the Statutory Instruments Committee and they are, of course, primary legislation.

Mr. Powell: Yes, indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has literally taken the words out of my mouth. I was about to remind the House that the Lord President had very fairly drawn attention to the fact that, in recognition of the special nature of statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland, an extra ration of time was given by Standing Order, because those statutory instruments would otherwise be the legislation of at least a subordinate Parliament, if such a Parliament still existed—a subject which may be detaining the attention of the House in months to come. If we feel that in these circumstances an allowance of more than one-hand-a-half hours is essential, how much more must that be so when we consider the comprehensive scope of the legislation that will come forward


from the European Community in the years to come.
I wish to put my argument to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, not so much by way of contradiction, but on the ground that he himself, as the person in charge of the Government's business, has much to gain by adopting the point of view espoused by the Select Committee. Whenever there is a proposed reference to the Standing Committee it can always be defeated by 20 hon. Members rising to their feet to object. The better the procedure in Standing Committee, the more the procedures of the Standing Committee give satisfaction to the rest of us who are not privileged to be on the Standing Committee, the more the Standing Committee can be regarded as a substitute for debate and decision in this House, the more ready will hon. Members be to permit legislation to be referred to it.
I believe that by insisting on the narrow letter of 73A as it now exists the right hon. Gentleman is gravely damaging his own interests as manager of the business of the House. Of course we share, within our respective limitations, the desire that, so far as possible, time on the Floor of the House should be reserved for the more important matters. So I beg the right hon. Gentleman to understand that if he will see his way to accept the advice of the Select Committee on the two matters on which he has differed, he will find the means of relieving pressure on this Chamber which, with general concurrence, will facilitate the business of the House.
We are trying to use the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments as a means of delegating the giving of approval, or at any rate all but the formal giving of approval, on behalf of this House. If that is to be realistic, the Standing Committee must be able to debate and come to resolutions in the proper manner. Otherwise it would almost be like sending a Bill upstairs to Standing Committee and then considering it on Report in the House without the Standing Committee having been able to make any amendments, or alternatively without our having any access to the decisions taken by the Standing Committee. It is necessary in my view that the Standing Committee should be able to debate substantive motions and, if it

desires, to consider amendments to those motions, so that its decisions on those questions will be available for the guidance of the House when the Standing Committee has completed its procedure.
Obviously the form of the questions will vary, and here I can see yet another advantage to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House if he takes the advice of the Standing Committee. In many cases the instruments considered by the Standing Committee will turn out to be instruments not for early implementation—instruments which it is important should at that stage be examined, but not instruments which in that form are likely to be turned into law by the Council of Ministers. There is every possible advantage in instruments of that kind being debated at leisure, and every possible advantage in the Select Committee being able to indicate by the form of its resolution what importance it attaches to the present form of those instruments in view of the stage of gestation they have reached. I fear that, if that is not done, Members of the House, when they hear that an important matter involving a voluminous document emanating from the Commission is proposed to be referred to the Standing Committee, will in numbers more than 20 rise to their feet, to ensure there and then that they have a discussion of that matter in the House.
So it seems to me essential that the procedure of the Select Committee should admit of substantive questions and amendments to those questions. From that it surely follows that the Standing Committee must be master of its time. It would be impossible for this House to expect to receive from a Standing Committee decisions, and the consideration of possible amendments to those decisions, and at the same time to tell it that it was to come to a conclusion within one-and-a-half hours. The length of time spent by the Standing Committee, if it is to relieve this House, must vary according to the importance attached by the Standing Committee to each document that is before it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will have much more co-operation from the House if there is evidence that an important document submitted to the Standing Committee has had lengthy consideration than if the


House finds itself confronted with a self-evidently important document on which the Standing Committee has had to conclude consideration within one-and-a-half hours. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in his own interests, in the interests of Government business and in the interests of the House, to reconsider his decision.
I come to the third instrument for giving or withholding approval—namely, this Chamber itself. Many such matters may be capable of being dealt with either by accepting silently a report of the Standing Committee or by the summary procedure in paragraph 5 of Standing Order 73A, although I should like to say a few words about that presently. However, there will be those matters which the House will have reserved to itself by either refusing permission to send them to the Standing Committee, or else by the Government laying the relevant resolution before the House in the first instance. Again, it seems to me that the same two requirements are present; first, a specific resolution, whatever it may be, and, secondly, adequate time. If it is the principle that prospective legislation before being assented to shall be approved by this House, then we all know what is meant by the approval of this House. This House gives its approval by passing resolutions with or without a Division, and that is just as appropriate to Community legislation as to any other type of decision.
I do not believe it is satisfactory either for the House or for the Government that there should be a standard one-and-a-half hours for what by definition are the most important issues of Community legislation, unless on any particular occasion the Government take part of the time before 10 o'clock to add to the hour-and-a-half after 10 o'clock. On the contrary, the proper course is not to set ourselves in advance any fixed maximum time for this purpose. Perhaps I am not in agreement with many hon. Members in my belief that we sometimes do very good work in this House after 10 o'clock at night. I do not think it is necessarily a condemnation of our procedure if we find ourselves debating important matters until 11 o'clock, midnight, or even one or two o'clock in the morning. Some of the

best and most fruitful debates I have attended in this House in 25 years have taken place at those hours, and I believe that has been the position not only in the recent past but throughout many centuries in the life of this House.

Sir David Renton: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right concerning the quality of the debating and about our capacity to indulge in these debates. However, is it not a fact that debates taking place at these late hours do not have the same impact upon public opinion, because the Press are very often not present in sufficient numbers?

Mr. Powell: I quite agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the Press are surprisingly careless in failing to discover that some of the most interesting things to report and some of the most exciting political events take place after they have closed their notebooks and gone to bed.
However, what we are considering here is approval given by this House to EEC legislation. Rather than, for the convenience of ourselves or the Whips, attempt to compress that work into the hours before 11.30 p.m., I should much sooner—and there is probably no ideal answer—leave this at large for the more subtle pressures and arrangements we all know to do their work. After all, even in this class of the most important EEC legislation, there are bound to be differences between some subjects which can be disposed of fairly smartly and others which call for more protracted discussion; and I am sure it has been the experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and of the Government Whips that, however great has been the strength of feeling on the EEC, there has been absolutely no disposition to use debates on EEC legislation as part of the means, however legitimate, of bringing pressure to bear on the Government by the use or misuse of time.
Finally, I want to refer to the work of this House upon EEC legislation which has been through the Select Committee, because I do not believe that we have got this right, with respect, either in the Report of the Select Committee or, even less, in the amendments to Standing


Orders tabled by the right hon. Gentleman.
It seems to me that two things must be possible. It must be possible and right for the Government themselves to secure—if they can—what they consider to be the right conclusion upon the particular legislative proposal; that is to say, there must be an appeal to this House from the Select Committee, from the point of view of the Government. But then surely there is something grotesque about the Government telling the House that it must reconsider and perhaps reverse the result of the intensive work of a few of its Members without allowing itself or anyone else the opportunity to put the reasons why or examine those reasons, however briefly. Perhaps this is a case in which the one and a half hours rule might be appropriate and might help us, but I simply cannot think it right that there should be an instantaneous decision whenever the Government consider that an instrument which has been through the Select Committee should be put before this House for decision. So much for the Government.
Then there are private Members, whether official Opposition or groups or indidivuals. They ought to have the opportunity to "have a go". After all, on legislation of any kind we can "have a go" on Report and, if six of us put our names down, on Third Reading. We can always have individually the last word where there is debated legislation. I believe that there needs to be provision whereby a private Member—and this perhaps is a case where decision forthwith would be appropriate—could secure a decision of this House, a vote of this House if necessary, upon legislation which has gone through the Standing Committee.
I am sorry that I have detained the House for so long. I end by saying once again most strongly to the right hon. Gentleman that he has nothing to lose and everything to gain from reconsidering the two points on which he has parted company from the Select Committee; and I say that out of an equal tenderness for his own duties towards the dispatch of Government business as for the rights of the House.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I think that I have followed the right hon.

Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in a number of the debates that we have had after 10p.m. on European Community legislation in the last 12 months. All I can say is that there has been no occasion on which I have disagreed with him less than I have today. Although he will find, particularly when we come to deal with the question of the Standing Committee, that I am less convinced than he is that our procedures are right, certainly with much of the rest of what he said I am totally in agreement. In particular I hope, as he does, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider very carefully again before he moves the detailed amendments to Standing Orders, which he has tabled today.
I should, perhaps, declare an interest in that I have served on the Secondary Legislation Committee since its creation 18 months ago. At times it has indeed been a trying business, but I believe that under the guidance of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), and with some assistance from the Government, the Committee has made a significant amount of progress in serving this House and the people of the United Kingdom.
In coming to the debate today and to this carefully prepared report, for which we are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving), I have to ask myself why at this stage the House should be considering again the methods which it uses to consider Community draft legislation. Is it because the Scrutiny Committee, the Secondary Legislation Committee, has failed so miserably? Is it because the referendum is behind us? Is it because the Government are not living up to their pledge to withhold their approval of proposals in Brussels until this House has had a chance to consider them?
I do not think that it is any of those reasons but the answer given by the right hon. Member for Down, South—the simple notion of convenience, both for the Government and for hon. Members. I must state plainly that I have not a great deal of sympathy with that notion of convenience, whether it applies in this context either to the Government or to hon. Members.
From the point of view of the Government, I appreciate the difficult problem


of the Leader of the House. He has a large legislative programme to bring forward. To ease this process he would clearly like to remove items which compete for time and do not require the normal procedures of the House. But we have to ask whether—as has been said frequently today—the items relating to the Community that we are considering in the House so far and those which we shall probably consider in the months to come are likely to be considered less important than other items that come before the House. I can put it another way. Can it be claimed that the Secondary Legislation Committee has abused the undertaking given by the Government to provide opportunities for the debate of important Community draft legislation? Have we put too much forward for debate? I do not believe that the answer is "Yes".
I think that hon. Members should know that in certain instances—quite rightly—the Committee has withdrawn its recommendation for a debate when a case has been made by the Government that the document in question is no longer a matter for serious Community consideration. My right hon. Friend and his successors must continue to shoulder the additional burden of providing time on the Floor of the House for consideration of Community matters.
Again, as has been said by the right hon. Member for Down, South, for hon. Members the convenience relates to the time and the length of sittings. I do not want to criticise any of my colleagues in the House, but I feel obliged to say that I am a little tired of hearing speakers in almost every Community debate carping about the timing of the debate. The House of Commons is not a mere gentlemen's club. It is a collection of men and women who are meant, among other things, to look after the welfare of the British people. If that requires late night sittings, so be it. If it requires debates on Fridays, so be it.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that Members of this House are also human beings, and they have the intellectual and physical limitations of human beings. In certain circumstances an excessive strain is put on the physical

stamina of men and women if they are expected to be in this House for 15, 16 or 18 hours a day.

Mr. Roper: I realise that that is a problem, but I do not think that the British public will tolerate Members who on the one hand complain about their political impotence and who then, on the other hand, are not willing to suffer minor discomforts in order to perform what is expected of them. Therefore, the argument about the convenience of Members of the House is not one on which we need spend a great deal of time.
I make these points at the outset because they undermine the prima facie case for moving EEC matters from the Floor of the House to a Standing Committee. The analogy which has been drawn with statutory instruments does not apply, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
A second question, which is equally important for us to consider is: what is the essential difference between Community draft legislation and British legislative proposals which should underlie any analysis that the House makes of Community affairs? There are several differences, some of which have already been referred to. I believe that the most important as regards Members of the House, particularly back benchers, is that, unlike proposals coming from the executive in this House, when Community proposals come before us they are not the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, at least not at the stage that they come before us initially. When an EEC Commission proposal is deposited in the Vote Office it is not put forward with the support of the Cabinet. Often it is months or years before a Cabinet position is taken.
The significance of this point is important. The parliamentary system as it normally operates is generally dominated by the position that the Cabinet adopts on a matter. On most matters party allegiance—the support or opposition of the executive—is the determining factor in the position adopted by hon. Members. However, on Community matters the situation is quite different. Until such time as Ministers have taken a view on Community proposals, those proposals are open for discussion and analysis by all


hon. Members in a quite different way from ordinary United Kingdom Government legislation. Partisan political points may arise in this analysis, but not at the expense of the Government or at the advantage of the Opposition. Anyone who has read the minutes of evidence at the sessions when the Secondary Legislation Committee has taken evidence will bear me out on this point. We have not debated the matter as supporters of the Government or of the Opposition. We have tried to analyse the merits of a proposal which at the point of time that it comes before us still has not the blessing or the opposition of the Government.
It follows from this that the concept of ministerial responsibility, which is a good one in our general debates in the House, has a different connotation when it is applied to European Community matters. True, once Ministers have taken a firm viewpoint the distinction is no longer valid, but until that time no one can rightly claim that back benchers should be excluded from policy making. I have some sympathy with—although I do not altogether agree with their argument—those right hon. and hon. Members who say that we cannot have Select Committees for each Department to examine departmental affairs because such Committees would undermine ministerial responsibility. However, Community legislation is not analogous with the activities of United Kingdom Government Departments. We can have detailed analysis of such proposals without infringing on the right and responsibility of the Government to govern.
That brings me to the third question: what is, therefore, the right format for such analysis? Beside the Floor of the House which I have accepted initially as being important, the obvious alternatives are a Select Committee and a Standing Committee, or a combination of the two. I have stated my objection to a Standing Committee as an obvious alternative to the Floor of the House. I see certain difficulties arising from the suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure. The Select Committee has suggested that Ministers should decide which matters should be taken up in Standing Committee. As I understand it, neither the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Lord President nor the amendment of my hon.

Friend the Member for Newham, South would allow a private Member to refer a matter to the Standing Committee.
Again, Ministers are to decide the form of motion to be debated. Presumably a Minister would lead the debate, provide the information, and respond to the debate. That is a perfectly appropriate format when a statutory instrument is being considered or when a Standing Committee is considering a Bill. However, Community matters are different at this stage. Therefore, a different approach is needed.
I believe that Ministers will suggest the minimum number of debates on the Floor of the House. They will probably postpone debates until the last possible moment because they will not want to discuss proposals on which they have not yet taken a stand. They will be reluctant to tell hon. Members the attitudes of various interests outside the House to the proposals.
This is not to argue that Ministers will act as if they are contemptuous of the House. Rather, they will act in the traditional pattern, which is not appropriate to draft Community legislation at the stage it comes before the House.
There is the additional problem of information. On many of the Community proposals which have come before the Secondary Legislation Committee hon. Members have depended heavily upon outside interests to indicate problems. This is as it should be, because Members of the House are expected to attempt to redress grievances. However, outside witnesses could not be called in Standing Committee.
Finally, I believe that there is the problem of duplication. The Select Committee on Procedure is not recommending that the Select Committee and the Standing Committee carry out precisely parallel tasks. My experience of the practical problems found on the Scrutiny Committee in trying to come to grips with EEC matters convinces me that members of the two Committees will find themselves covering much of the same ground. This will mean a squandering of scarce resources, by which I mean not merely monetary resources but also the time of right hon. and hon. Members.
Having therefore found that neither the idea of a Standing Committee alone nor


the idea of a Standing Committee in conjunction with a Select Committee is acceptable, I believe that there is much to be said for the House considering whether the idea of a Select Committee could not be expanded to do the job more adequately than at present, combined of course with the continuing right and responsibility for debate on the Floor of the House on the Reports submitted by the Select Committee.
This is an option which I believe is preferable, not merely because I believe that the present Select Committee has worked tolerably well but also because from the work of the Committee we have learned lessons on which we can build. In short, I should like to turn to one or two improvements which could be made to our existing Select Committee procedure so that it can do its job much more satisfactorily.
First and most importantly, I believe that the Select Committee needs a change in its terms of reference to allow it to carry on a closer analysis of important Community documents. The Committee announced its intention in its Second Special Report of this Session to examine in more detail certain draft Community legislation. I note that the Select Committee on Procedure welcomes this in its Report.
We must remember that the Government motion establishing the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation gave as its major function the sifting of Community documents. That was a departure from the original recommendations of the Foster Committee but one to which our chairman has rightly held us. We have been precluded from commenting on the merits of individual instruments coming before us.
No doubt the sifting of documents remains a task to be performed, but it does not need to be the primary task of the Committee. Other methods of sifting suggest themselves, the two most notable being that used by the European Communities Committee in another place whereby the chairman with the assistance of her clerks separates the wheat from the chaff, and the method used in the Bundestag—I understand that we are to consider this later this month—whereby the proposals that the clerks in consultation

with the Committee chairmen deem to be of minor importance are presented to the committees en bloc for consultation and odbjections from members.
I believe that our Committee has benefited also from the advice of our Clerks and that something similar to the German system would work well. What is needed is a change in the terms of reference so that sifting is of secondary importance while analysis and assessment by the Select Committee of important documents should be our prime task.
In addition to this expansion of our functions, a restructuring of the Committee might also be in order. As constituted, the Committee has one sub-committee, and that only for sifting. If the proposal which I have suggested were accepted, that sub-committee would be obsolete and in its place we would need to look at the possibility of setting up a functioning sub-committee, its work to some extent parallelling the functions of a Select Committee in another place. It would deal, for example, with agriculture, fishing, trade, energy, industry, employment, economic and budgetary affairs.
I have no time now to go into detail about the way in which such a Committee would operate, but I think that the House, before it accepts the proposal submitted by my right hon. Friends for moving to a Standing Committee procedure—which has some merits because it would ease his burden on the Floor of the House—ought to consider whether such a procedure would be appropriate for the House of Commons for dealing with this new problem with which we are faced in contemplating, analysing and influencing the formation of policy of the British Government in relation to the Community.
I have already spoken for a long time, but this is an issue about which I feel strongly. My attitude on the rôle of Britain in the Community is no secret, but I cannot emphasise enough how important it is that this House should play an active part in making EEC policy choices. Perhaps the most successful debate we have had in this House on Community affairs in recent months was on 17th October on the Community's stocktaking report. That was possible because that for the first time the Scrutiny Committee went much further


than it had done before and produced the sort of report which provided a basis for the debate. I hope this is something that we can use in future.
I point to that debate to allay the fears of right hon. and hon. Members who believe that careful analysis in Select Committee and proper expression of the feeling of this House through debate in this Chamber are mutually exclusive. They can work together. We must have both in dealing satisfactorily with Community draft legislation.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Hurd: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) and to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because they took us back to the constitutional principles which underlie this debate. It is natural that in a debate of this kind the burden should be carried by people who have served, in this case, on the Scrutiny Committee and on the Select Committee on Procedure and who have lived through all the arguments and are masters of the details.
I believe that I am the first Member to be called who has not, as it were, served that apprenticeship. But I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I feel passionately about the importance of this subject and I wish that we were able to interest a larger band of our colleagues and a larger section of the public in its overwhelming importance, not just as part of the pattern of a developing Europe but also as part of the older pattern of the history of this House.
If the founding fathers of the European Community had been with us today they would have been rather startled by the debate. They would not have been startled by the fact that Britain is a member of the Community, because that is something which they always expected, but they would have been startled by the fact that this House at this time should have been anxious to assert its authority over Community matters and should be looking for ways of doing so. In their concept, the Community would by now have developed on the lines of a European Commission which would gradually have grown into being something indistinguishable from a European Government, and, on the other hand, a European Parliament

which would have gradually grown through direct election and increase of powers into an Assembly which effectively and democratically controlled the Commission and thus the executive of Europe.
They would have felt, therefore, a tremor of sympathy with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) because they, like him, would have been in ignorance of what has happened to Europe since the founding fathers left the scene. The Community has developed in quite a different way, like a tree which almost imperceptibly starts to grow in a different shape from that which one expected when it was planted. The growth of the Commission has been checked.
The Council of Ministers has held on to and is now developing its own power and its own sense of being the centre of decision making. This fact has enormous implications for us in this House. If it had been true that the Commission was developing as the executive, one would have had some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Rochdale in saying that what mattered was the democratic nature and powers of the European Parliament because the Commission, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) pointed out in his evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure, does not feel any responsibility to this House.
If the Commission were what mattered, it would be only the European Parliament which mattered when we were thinking about a democratic check. If the Council of Ministers is what matters—and I believe that this will emerge from the work that Mr. Tindemans is doing for the future—it is important that we in this House should find the best means of controlling the Ministers who go from this country to all the different meetings.
These Ministers are our creatures. They come when we call them. They are not in the same way responsible to the European Parliament. That is where the hon. Member for Rochdale completely misunderstood the present situation. What we should aim at is a pincer movement of democratic control. I agree that the Members of the European Parliament should be directly elected and should operate as effectively as they can on the central machinery of the Community.
However, if a Council of Ministers is what is important, this House must be jealous and assertive of its own rights as it has ever been.
Against this background I ask the Leader of the House to think again about his general attitude to the subject. We know that he has done his best. He has behaved towards these matters rather as a parent has behaved to a child guest whom his own children have invited to his home for the holidays. He has restrained his irritation. There has been a knife and fork laid for the visitor, but all the time he has wished that the holidays would come to an end and that the visitor would go away. There have certainly been no second helpings of parliamentary time for European business.
But the situation has changed. The referendum has changed that. The visitor is, in fact, no longer a visitor but an adopted member of the household. We must ask—this has been the tenor of many speeches—the Lord President to think again about his attitude. The whole analogy of secondary legislation in this House has been criticised by almost every speaker. It does not stand up to the most elementary examination. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but the spirit in which he has approached this matter has failed to rise to the level of the importance of the subject.
It is important to realise that this will be a developing business. We shall not work out in this or the next Session the exact answer to the problem which will last perhaps for a century. For example, if we have directly elected Members of the European Parliament, there is the problem of what their relationship should be to Members of this House. It is a problem to which the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) has given careful attention and about which he has made suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood has done the same. It is an important problem in the next chapter for the next four or five years. We should accommodate this problem within the structure which we are discussing today—not now, but we must keep it open.
The directly elected Members who would not be Members of this House should nevertheless be able to take part in discussions in the Standing Committee

which we are considering. That is one way of accomplishing the important meshing together of the work of British representatives in Strasbourg who are directly elected, once those representatives are no longer Members of this House.
I think worth noting and underlining one change which I have perceived over the past year in listening to debates on these matters. In all our discussions we have been grateful for the contributions made by experienced and energetic hon. Members on both sides who have been strongly opposed to British membership of the Community. I think it not unfair to say that, at the beginning, some of those contributions were principally directed to showing that the task which we have been discussing was futile, that there was no way of reconciling British membership of the Community with effective control by the House of Commons over the decisions of our representatives at the Community.
However, I think that I have detected both today and previously a change of approach. Our constituents have told us that this task has to be accomplished, and therefore the energy and skill which we have admired is now being devoted to accomplishing it. Some right hon. and hon. Members told us in the past that it was an impossible task. Now that it is clearly a task which must be accomplished, they have realised the truth of the old saying that what is difficult can be done at once and what is impossible just takes a little longer.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I join the hon. Member for Mix-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) and other hon. Members in regretting that the Government have not fallen in with the suggestion made by the Scrutiny Committee and by others that we should have a "take note" debate this afternoon and we should decide the substantive issues on the precise amendments to Standing Orders at another time. I regret that decision because this is an extremely important issue and we must get it right. As matters stand, the form of the debate and the conclusions we may reach are very much determined by the Government's motion. In my view, it might well have been in the Government's own interest to inform themselves


of the views of back benchers before moving any substantive amendments to Standing Orders.
The Government's cavalier attitude on this issue is seen not only in the form of the debate but also in the substance of what is proposed. Here, I believe, we are paying the penalty for sloppy terminology. We constantly refer to Community legislation as European secondary legislation, and that sloppy terminology has inevitably led to a sloppy conclusion in the form which the Government's proposals have taken.
The truth, as so many hon. Members have made plain, is that Community legislation is not secondary legislation at all. The only similarity it bears to statutory instruments is that in a purely technical sense it depends on an Act of this Parliament for its force as law. There the similarity ends. Statutory instruments must yield to Acts of Parliament if they are repugnant to those Acts. Community legislation, by contrast, prevails over Acts of Parliament. Statutory instruments are made within limits prescribed and established following debate in the House. Community legislation, by contrast, need never be even debated in the House, and it takes its place within a context determined not by an Act of this Parliament but by the Community Treaties.
Furthermore, statutory instruments are made solely by Ministers as representatives of the British Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) pointed out, whereas Community legislation is made by or within a process of legislation in which our Minister plays merely a contributory part, that part being well beyond, in any normal sense, the control exercised by the House, the process being one in which negotiation and bargaining play a large rôle.

Mr. Roper: Will my hon. Friend agree also that when these instruments come before the House it is unlikely that our Ministers have taken any part in their formulation, since they are purely the product of the Commission?

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point. Given the unique nature of European legislation and the fact that it is in no sense analogous to subordinate legislation, save

in a purely technical way, we must try to adapt our procedures or adopt new ones. In the light of the loss of control which we have suffered as a result of our membership of the Community, we must make good that loss as best we may.
The first and essential step in that effort is to have adequate scrutiny and an adequate procedure. I take pleasure here in agreeing with the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) when he suggests that, despite some continuing problems, the Scrutiny Committee is now able to identify those measures and proposals which are of substantial political or legal significance. However, it is what happens after that scrutiny which is important and which is the subject of today's debate.
What happens at that stage, I believe, will depend on a number of elements which may come together to make up a proper system of control by the House over the executive. Those elements include the need for provision for debate on proposals on the Floor or by a Committee of the House. There must be a mechanism for initiating such debate. There must be adequate time for debate. The debate must take place neither so early that the proposals are still only vaguely formulated and may be substantially changed after the debate nor so late that the proposals have reached a final stage and will be unaffected by our debate. Moreover, the debate must be capable of determination by a decision of the House or its Committee.
We come here to the crux of the matter. If this chain of control is to be maintained, it is essential that the House be able to form and reach a decision and be able to inform or instruct Ministers on what that decision is.
I do not believe that the Government's proposals, as it were dividing the power to debate but not vote in respect of the House from the power to vote but not debate, as will be the case in Committee, will achieve the results which we desperately need, especially when the vote will be on a motion or amendments which will have been tabled before the Standing Committee has been able to reach a view. Nor do I accept that opinion which the Lord President expressed in answer to a question when he gave evidence to


the Select Committee. He said—this is Question No. 176—
The Government can get the views of Members of Parliament from the contents of the debate, I should have thought, rather than counting heads with about 26 people there at 11.30 at night".
The traditional, orthodox and conventional way of determining the view of the House or one of its Committees on a proposal for legislation has served us well and ought not to be abandoned. It cannot be maintained that the lateness of the hour or the number of Members present, save for the provision of a quorum, has ever determined the validity of decisions of the House of Commons on legislation.
After consideration of these matters by the House or a Committee, the Minister must in some sense be bound by what the House or the Committee decides. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House reiterate the assurance that Ministers would not, at least in most cases, agree to legislation before the proposals had been discussed by the House. But I should have liked him to go further and accept that Ministers will not assent to legislative proposals which run counter to a resolution or the expressed will of the House, and I hope that we shall hear a word about that in the winding-up speech from the Front Bench.
The whole process of control over Ministers rests on the veto, and that also must be maintained. There must be a mechanism for reporting back to the House about what Ministers have been able to achieve in the light of the views and decisions of the House. There must be the possibility—I agree with what other hon. Members have said here—of reviewing what has happened, especially when what has happened has in an important respect departed from what the House has been able to debate or decide. Ideally, I should like it to be possible for the House to be able to withhold the force of law from proposals which depart in that substantial way from proposals which it has endorsed.
Many of these elements in the chain of control are to some extent beyond the ambit of this debate, but when we turn our attention to those elements which fall within the present ambit, what is the answer? How satisfactory are the

Government's proposals to meet the requirements which I have outlined? It will probably come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that I do not consider the Government's proposals satisfactory. I believe that they are based essentially on the false analogy with statutory instruments.
For my part—I believe that other hon. Members feel the same—I welcome the proposal that there should be a Standing Committee, and I depart here, I believe, from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth. I welcome it because I believe that it deals with the practical problem which the Scrutiny Committee encountered, namely, that of dealing with proposals which are important and which therefore ought to be brought to the attention of Members of Parliament but are not so important as necessarily to require time on the Floor of the House. In my view, the Standing Committee system will deal with that practical problem quite well.
I support the proposal also because our Standing Committee procedure is inherently preferable to the Select Committee procedure when we are concerned with special proposals of a legislative character. Because we are dealing with proposals which are not yet in their final form—Ministers will still have to negotiate and perhaps even the Government might not have taken a view—it is right that a Standing Committee should be able to reach conclusions and take a view. It is regrettable that the Government's proposals have ignored the Select Committee's recommendations in these matters, particularly the referring of the Standing Committee's conclusions to the Floor of the House.
Our job of controlling the executive and scrutinising legislation is difficult enough. The derogation from our powers has been substantial. The House must adapt itself and strain its every nerve to develop new procedures to bring the executive back within our control as much as possible. We have done it in the past and we can do it again, but we cannot do it on the basis of these Government proposals.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test


(Mr. Gould) in his excellent speech. I sensed an enormous amount of agreement in the House with much of what he said. He has been a member of the Scrutiny Committee and speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience. I particularly agree with him that the Select Committee approach would not be as suitable for what we shall be trying to do as a Standing Committee.
This has been a relatively harmonious debate as we have grappled with trying to make Parliament work better and to improve our scrutiny of legislation. There are deficiencies in the Lord President's proposals which have disappointed many hon. Members. Following the publication of the Select Committee's Report in the summer, there were noises emanating from the Lord President's offices and elsewhere indicating that the recommendations and key suggestions in the Report would be accepted. The Lord President has failed to accept two of the most important recommendations. I regard the question of preparing a list of Community instruments in passage as extremely important and vital for the proper servicing of the House. One wonders who the Lord President consulted before reaching the decisions on timing and the inability of the Committee to make motions or amendments to substantive motions. This is a disappointing announcement. It will not do. Even if the right hon. Gentleman's will prevails, the House will have to return to this question. The idea that a Standing European Committee should start off hog-tied is unacceptable to all parts of the House.
It was a little cool for the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who could be described, if it is not too much of a contradiction in terms, as a Liberal Patronage Secretary, to come to this debate to make a speech that was totally irrelevant. Presumably it had already been printed, with a duplicate copy for the latest edition of the Liberal News, circulation 1,000. He left the House immediately afterwards and his remarks were in no way related to the central substance of this debate. Admittedly, the hon. Member may have had a previous engagement outside, but it is too much for a Member of the Liberal Party, particularly a senior Member, to come into the House and subject us to a display of ignorance which, I suppose, is inflicted

on his constituents at his surgeries. He suggested that Liberals have a monopoly of concern for the Community and the way in which the House deals with these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Perhaps I may prevent the hon. Member from falling into the same trap if he will return to the Orders under discussion.

Mr. Dykes: I not only note what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I immediately obey it. It was a pity that there was confusion in respect of the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale about the way future developments of the European Parliament will have a repercussive effect on national legislatures, including our own. I think I am the first Member of the European Parliament to speak in this debate. The idea that, once directly elected, a European Parliament could replace this House in the scrutinising of European instruments is nonsensical and ludicrous as long as the present political structures in the Community continue, which, I imagine, will be for a long time. A directly elected Parliament would be a useful supplement for this House, but no more than that, in the to-ing and fro-ing and dialogue about Community instruments and legislation. I hope we can avoid all the disagreeable accidents of timing in these matters being considered by the two assemblies.
I hope that elected European Members of Parliament will be given institutional access to this House in due course and to the Standing Committee if it succeeds, as I hope it does, despite the Lord President's disappointing response to some of the Select Committee's suggestions. This access could be anticipated now. It has been said that it would not be right to consider how elected Members of a European Parliament could be slotted into existing arrangements. Of course the question does not arise yet because, at present. Members of the European Parliament are also Members of this House or another place. However, one could anticipate their dual rôle in at least semi-institutional terms in advance of the direct elections. It is important for the Standing Committee to succeed vis-à-vis the executive and vis-à-vis the very great pressures on the time of the House, so that the


House can consider Community legislation in a proper and rational way.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) got a bit mixed up when referring to Council documents rather than Commission documents. From our point of view, there is only one kind of document—originated by the Commission on behalf of the Council of Ministers or by the Commission exercising its own initiative. Later, the House will be considering the recidivist aspect of documents as they come back from this latest process in the Community. This is still very strange to us in this House. It has been difficult in the past, though once again I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davis) and his colleagues on the Scrutiny Committee, for the House has had to jump on the moving roundabout of European legislation and instruments at different stages in the preparation of the documents. It will be important for the Standing Committee to debate these matters at the latest stage possible, commensurate in practical terms with being able to influence the executive as it approaches decisive meetings of the Council of Ministers. But in that respect I would propose, by way of modification and as something which could be considered later, that the aim should be to combine the potential effectively to cover everything the Community sends to this House and to the executive for consideration with a ruthless but highly practical selectivity about those things which the Standing Committee should debate.
If the existing procedure is maintained so that the Scrutiny Committee makes its selective suggestions to the Standing Committee on European matters, presumably the fact of having a Committee upstairs and not relying on debate on the Floor of the House after 10 o'clock will mean that more things will be proposed by the Committee for consideration upstairs.
It is not essential for this House to be worried about everything but the most minor matters. I hope that the Standing Committee will pass over rapidly a large number of less than minor matters upstairs so that the House can once and for all concentrate effectively on the important issues. If the quid pro quo of the fact that Section 1 of the European Communities

Act was sweeping, comprehensive and grandiose is that our scrutiny procedure must be sophisticated and elaborate, this will be undermined not by the executive but by a House which is too ambitious in trying to cover everything, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Standing Committee.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right in saying that in that context the Lord President has the opportunity to be courageous this time to reconsider the fact that he has left out these key elements of the Procedure Committee's report. On European legislation the executive here will not be under attack in the traditional parliamentary sense, defending its exclusive individual position against a Parliament where often nowadays there may be a vigorous opposition from their own benches.
There was a skilful article in the Financial Times on Friday by that newspaper's political correspondent which said that in these matters the Government in Brussels was like a lobby or pressure group seeking the best place and position for the United Kingdom. In that context therefore the Government do not have to worry that this House is seeking to embarrass or defeat them by conventional votes on these matters. The House must be able to agree that it is seeking the best results for the country without adopting the normal positions in Parliament which characterise all our internal legislation.
We shall do this in a way which is new and to some extent rather alien to us. We have had several years' experience, groping on many occasions, and this House, having come late on the European scene, still has a scrutiny system which most other European Parliaments have abandoned. However, we can attempt to create a model for all other Parliaments which the member States could begin to emulate with enthusiasm.

Mr. Costain: If a Minister were putting up an argument in Brussels, would it not help his arguments against the other ministers if he were in a position to say that this House was unanimously against such a proposal?

Mr. Dykes: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. He comes back to the vital importance of having substantive


motions or amendments to them. Certainly on many occasions it will be necessary to reinforce the Government in that way, and I hope that that fact will encourage the Lord President to reconsider at least these two matters and perhaps some of the minor matters as well.
The harmony of this debate is a reflection of Parliament's anxiety to try to get it right this time after many glottal stops. None of us will prove to be effective—apart from the two points which have concerned hon. Members this afternoon—unless there is a substantial back-up. Hence the significance of the lists. I was amazed when the Lord President said that the executive did not wish to trouble the House by publishing long lists of Community measures. About 150 directives come out of the Community every year. Most of them are of critical importance to vital groups in the United Kingdom. The Lord President's suggestion is treating the House too casually.
The other back-up which would be needed concerns the quality of the documentation produced. I hope that this House has seen the last of the out-of-date drafts of Community instruments, the documents which have to be reproduced later and where the drafting emanating from official sources, was totally out of date. If that point is not dealt with, even though the quality of the debates upstairs is outstanding and magnificent, the work of this House will remain inefficient and ineffective.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: There has been a great measure of agreement throughout the debate on both sides that we must get the proposals right this time, and that is due to the great deal of experience that we have accumulated on various aspects of Community legislation.
It is a great pleasure and privilege to have served on the Scrutiny Committee under the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). He has conducted these matters with the greatest skill. It became clear to all of us on that Commitee that simply having the power of scrutiny and to divide all Community proposals into two categories—either they went by on the nod or they came to the House for full debate—was inadequate. The problem was what to do

with those items which were coming to the House from the Community which did not merit a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House. I refer to items which are not sufficiently controversial to excite a busy House, but which require adequate scrutiny, not just within the two-sided party framework, but in order to find out what the items are about. The people who would be touched by them could then be informed and the professional Press could know what was going on. It could draw a response about what British Ministers should say when the proposals come up before the Council of Ministers.
The impressive aspect of this debate is that everyone has seized upon the point that what is coming before us is not legislation in the traditional sense. We are dealing with a proposal for what we might call a Green Paper. We must therefore devise a method of bringing the views of the House, of the British public and of the interests concerned to bear on a policy document on which the House or the Government have taken no position. It is in that respect that the Select Committee procedure is not a happy one to use.
I disagree with the most able speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) in one respect. I agreed with him on the characterisation of the problem but I was surprised that he should say that the best technique was a Standing Committee technique involving two sides, where speakers go at each other, and where the Minister takes one position and other Members take another position.
What are the characteristics which our procedure ought to have in dealing with this kind of policy proposal or legislative proposal? The first is that we want to know the views of outside bodies. We want to know what are the views of those closely affected. We cannot find that out in a Standing Committee. The way to get those views is to invite people to come and give evidence.
Secondly, we need expertise. May I say to the Lord President that one of the things that worried me was his proposal to have, I gathered, a different ad hoc Standing Committee for each proposal or bunch of proposals. If we have


learned one thing on the Scrutiny Committee, it is that it takes a long time to understand what it is all about, and if we are continually standing down and being reappointed and doing different jobs, we cannot expect to understand it.
To understand the detailed regulations relating to the common agricultural policy requires a great deal of specialism. It means having the same people to go into them week after week and month after month, so that they may realise precisely what is going on, and what attention needs to be drawn to which proposal. Again, the evidence of outside bodies is needed. There is a need for expertise, for persistence in the matter, and for time. In these circumstances a period of an hour and a half is quite insufficient.
We need to have a situation into which party feeling does not enter. It might be a matter of disentangling a problem, and one cannot attack the Government when one does not know what they are saying. One might want to back them up. One does not always want to criticise. One might want to urge the Government to bargain in Brussels from a particular basis, making a number of points.
One can add to these criteria. Another is that if Ministers do not put the case well on one instrument, one will want them to take it back again. One cannot do this without having the sort of continuing body which can say to the Government that the last time they went to bargain about the matter they made a mess of it and did not get what was wanted, and that this time they ought to do something better.
These criteria are not available to a Standing Committee but they are available to a Select Committee, which is able to call evidence and to get the Ministry's officials to state what will be the likely impact of a particular course of action. It can hear the evidence of outside pressure groups, it can recall the Minister and it can make positive proposals. I feel that the correct intermediary body is not a Standing Committee, reproducing the Floor of the House situation, but a Select Committee which can act in the positive manner that I have outlined.
There are two methods of doing this. One is the method suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr.

Roper). He said that we ought to extend the Scrutiny Committee, letting it work like a Committee in another place, with sub-committees to deal with the merits of questions concerning agriculture, transport, regional policy, industrial policy and so on. The other method is to set up separate Select Committees of this House to deal with these matters. But we shall never be able to do this work properly unless the Select Committees are able to have an on-going interest, not only understanding what is proposed but sometimes saying what ought to be proposed, and what the British Government should be asking for in Brussels, as opposed to reacting always to the Commission's initiatives.

Mr. George Cunningham: Would the best course not be to have a Select Committee dealing with agriculture, for example, or transport, which would be responsible for keeping an eye on the Government concerning the domestic aspects of policy and also European policy. Is that what my hon. Friend is suggesting?

Mr. Mackintosh: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I am suggesting. It is the only way in which it can be done. There is such an interlock between domestic policy and what is coming from Europe that the two cannot be divorced. Unless we know the detail of the domestic situation we cannot look at, scrutinise and properly comment upon proposals coming from the Community. We need to know the areas in which the Community ought to be making proposals, even if these proposals are not coming forward. It is in this way that we get advantage out of membership, as well as by merely reacting to proposals which come to us from the Commission.
It seems to me, therefore, that we should either expand the Scrutiny Committee and let it look at the merits, appointing sub-committees, and so on, or set up Select Committees as on-going parts of this House. Only three or four would be needed in order to cover the main areas of Community activity. This would be a positive way of doing it, adding to the efficiency and effectiveness of the House, not only in dealing with European legislation but in dealing with


proposals emanating from the Government on similar topics which are still purely under the control of Westminster and Whitehall.
I have the greatest good will towards the Lord President, because I support him so strongly in some of his other policies on which he is battling at the moment, and I do not wish to add to his difficulties. I must say, however, that one thing is evident. Every speaker in this House has asked him to reconsider and to think again. I can only add my voice to theirs and hope that he does so.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to follow very closely what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said. He has almost taken the words out of my mouth, because I was going to say that it has emerged from this debate that, to deal with the merits of European secondary legislation, neither the Select Committee, as we know it at present, nor the Standing Committee, according to our Standing Orders, is satisfactory.
I do not think anybody could pretend that the Standing Committees dealing with Statutory Instruments have been a grand success. When I have intervened—as I have when matters of validity of orders and legal matters concerning orders have been involved—I have found the Standing Committees almost deserted. They have not attracted the attention of hon. Members of the House. I cannot, therefore, feel that it is really a good precedent to use for the very important primary legislation with which we are dealing, although it happens to be called European secondary legislation. My hope is that we shall be a little bolder and devise a Committee specially for this work.
A Select Committee has the advantage that it can take evidence. It is also a continuing Committee, as the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has said. It can make any report it chooses. It is not bound as to the sort of report it makes to the House. But it has the disadvantage that, under our rules, its deliberations are in private, it is restricted to the members of the Select Committee, and other Members cannot join in.
The normal Standing Committee, as we know it under Standing Orders, has the benefit that other Members can join in its deliberations—they can join in, but they cannot vote. But it has the disadvantage as has been said, that it is unable to call evidence.
It has been said again and again in this debate that a Committee dealing with the merits of European secondary legislation would at that stage perhaps need further evidence. When we are dealing with European secondary legislation, after it has been processed through the Scrutiny Committee, there may be need, on occasions for additional evidence to be given. In short, as our rules stand at present, a Select Committee is very restricted in its deliberations; a Standing Committee, on the other hand, has the benefit of extended deliberation, by which I mean the attendance of other Members, but it is restricted in regard to taking evidence.
Can we not be a little bolder and devise a form of committee to meet all the points brought forward in the debate today? I feel that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its recommendations to the House, and the Government themselves, have been too hidebound by our present procedure. We are dealing with something entirely new in legislative form. There is no reason why we should not devise our own process for dealing with it.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) suggested a Select Committee to deal with the merits. I do not think that a Select Committee, according to our rules, is satisfactory for that purpose, and I do not think that a Standing Committee is satisfactory, either.
Let us put those suggestions in abeyance for the time being and think again, to see whether we can devise our own special form of committee to deal with this new type of legislation.

Mr. John Davies: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Foster Committee suggested that a novel type of committee was required? Is my right hon. Friend reflecting the views of the Foster Committee, that the special nature of European secondary legislation defies the normal format of committees to which this House has hitherto given effect?

Mr. Page: Indeed, I had in mind that part of the Foster Committee's Report, I deliberately did not mention the report, because there were other parts with which I did not entirely agree, but certainly it accorded with what I had in mind in that instance.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: Having read the Report and looked at some of the amendments, I approach the debate feeling somewhat confused, particularly about constitutional matters and amendments to Standing Orders. But the principles of the issue involved are clear from the debate. Both sides of the House seem to be united in thinking that the Government proposals are not acceptable. The Government are being asked to review the situation, and it may be that at the end of the debate we shall come to some accommodation on that.
The Government proposals are not acceptable, for a number of reasons. The proposed time for debate of one and a half hours in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House is not sufficient for the very important legislation and regulations on which we shall be asked to comment. Other matters, particularly in regard to the votes and amendments, are not satisfactory. One pales at the thought of the proposal that we should amend something before it is discussed and vote on it afterwards. That is not adequate for a proper analysis of the situation.

Mr. Edward Short: That is what we always do—put the amendments down before the debate.

Mr. Prescott: I understood that we could have a document before us even at the consultative stages, and we should want to give it a proper examination before putting down amendments.

Mr. George Cunningham: The equivalent would be putting down amendments for the Report stage before the Standing Committee stage, which no one would countenance.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that analogy, which points out the minefields that we are entering when

we consider this matter of amendments and proper procedures.
I am not a member of the Select Committee or the Scrutiny Committee, but as a member of the European Assembly I should like to deal in particular with one or two points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) on the question whether this House should consider the rôle of its delegation to the Assembly in the shaping of the legislation we discuss here. The Select Committee stated:
Your Committee accept that in general the Members of this House attending the European Assembly will take account of the views expressed by the House, but it would not be practicable (even were is desirable) to hold them accountable as Ministers are held accountable. Moreover, since this aspect of the matter is outside our Committee's Order of Reference, they think it proper not to pursue it
That is unfortunate, because it is clear from the debate that we are talking about an essentially different type of legislative proposal. We are talking about documents—perhaps Green Papers—that are given to us to discuss so that we may pass on our view to the Minister concerned. I believe that the vote is by far the most satisfactory way of expressing that view. It is traditional for the House to reflect its opinion by a vote. By voting we can tell the Minister before he goes to the Council of Ministers that he should take account of the opinion of the House. We are expressing the accountability of the Minister and the Government to the House.
In the discussion so far we have tended to ignore the delegation from the House which acts on its behalf in the European Assembly. Perhaps that is because the delegation was outside the Committee's terms of reference. The delegation influences documents at the early stages, because the documents are formulated by the Commission and then given to the committees of the Assembly, which express opinions on them. There have been examples of the Commission taking note of a critical debate in the Assembly, and probably an adverse vote, and changing a document. Therefore, our delegation has an opportunity to influence documents which will later come before the House or whatever Committee we decide upon.
To that extent, the delegation is important. It is not just a body that can


determine its own views and decide as it thinks best in light of the idea of European solidarity. This raises the important question of what European union is to be. I cannot enter into that argument in this debate, but it involves taking a view of what has happened since the formulation of the Rome Treaty. The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon said that the treaty was not having the results that were envisaged, in that the Commission was not becoming all-powerful but was very much circumscribed by the Council of Ministers. That is a particularly important development, whose relevance to this debate is that if Ministers are to maintain their veto, which will also be important in any European union, the delegation from this Parliament will become another instrument to attempt to influence decisions about legislation, documents or regulations in the Assembly. It will do so not necessarily as an instrument of the Government but on behalf of this House.
It is true that the House can dismiss the delegation. It appoints it, and therefore it can dismiss it. That makes the delegation, like a Minister, accountable to the House, and that raises the question of what it should be doing on behalf of the House. The delegation's important rôle is to reflect the opinions of the House in the European Assembly, and fight for them there.

Mr. Hard: I find the hon. Gentleman's analysis very interesting, but is he not talking about a transitional phase? Under the treaty and in the view of the present Government, which is perhaps likely to be expressed more clearly in the next few weeks, the process by which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are appointed from this House is transitional. In the next three or four years it is likely to be replaced by direct election, which will completely alter the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Prescott: I do not know that that would alter the basis of the argument. It depends on how the direct elections are held. The Assembly has not yet determined that. The matter is being discussed between the Commission and the Assembly, and documents have been circulated. Even before this Parliament considers the matter the Commission and Assembly will be formulating policies on the dual mandate. There is the question whether there

should be one election period for all Europe, which could create interesting anomalies, such as the possibility of a Labour Government here and a Tory delegation. That would raise some problems which the House would need to consider. There is the difficulty of electing people who are not Members of Parliament. We would need to define their responsibility to this House and decide whether we should change our procedures so that they could take part in debate. I cannot accept that that would be acceptable. The relevance of the direct election is at the heart of the matter. If there are to be people representative of this House and the Community, they should be representative of all the Community and part of this House.
I want to deal with the relevance of the vote. Whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee opinion must be tested by a vote. We must not wait until the Commission has formulated proposals and they are brought here. The committees in the Assembly are daily discussing Commission documents. They are asked to formulate the opinion of this House when there is no means by which that opinion can be ascertained. Such committees can pursue their own prejudices and their own views but they cannot ascertain the views of the House. It will be seen that the vote is not only of relevance in supporting Ministers but is also of importance to the delegation, in that it provides it with the views of this House.
There are fundamental decisions being taken concerning direct elections, European union and energy. Members who attend committee meetings ought to be aware of the view of the House on these subjects. The Select Committee has made it clear that the rôle of the British delegation was outside its terms of reference. I appeal to the Leader of House to examine the suggestion of the establishment of a Committee to look at the rôle of the delegation, how it is serviced, and the views it should be reflecting.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh)—probably for the first time in my life—over this question of Select Committees. This is a most important procedure. They can work closely with members of the European Assembly who specialise in certain areas. As a result, the House will be much better informed.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I had not intended to say a word in this debate, but I have listened to it with increasing fascination and noticed that everyone from every quarter of the House, whatever his views on Europe, feels that these amendments are not satisfactory. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider what follows from that. He cannot write this off by saying that this has been an ill-attended debate. My experience over the years in the House is that progressively our debates are less well-attended but better-informed. There is good reason for this. It is that government has become so increasingly complicated that any Member who wants to be any use has had to decide to devote a good deal of his attention to one or two subjects so that he may know them well. That obliges him to deny himself the luxury of listening to what may be interesting debates on subjects which are not those he is determined to master.
More and more our debates—this is inevitable and in the nature of modern government—consist, except on certain great occasions, of limited groups of Members possessing a great deal of information. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have realised, as he has listened to the debate, that none of the speeches has been petulant. None has been motivated by a desire to score off the Government. They have been genuinely concerned to try to find the right answer to the question of the way in which the House is to handle European matters.
The remarkable thing is that there has been so much agreement among hon. Members whose whole approach to the European question in the past, and maybe today, has been so different. Surely my right hon. Friend must give some weight to this considerable measure of unanimity. I will mention the points about which hon. Members have been concerned. The arguments have already been well deployed.
There is the limitation of time, the proposed limitation on the powers of the Standing Committee and the limitation on the opportunity to propose amendments, on which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke powerfully. There have also been the remarkable

speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). From all of this has emerged the fact that we are talking about something genuinely new in politics. I have always thought it dangerous, when people were arguing about the European Community, to try to draw analogies from history and to ask "How far is it like the League of Nations? How far is it like the Swiss Confederation?" The answer is that it is not like any of those. It is a new creation. That means that we need certain new creations in our procedure in order properly to deal with it.
That is where the Government's proposals fall down. They represent an attempt simply to graft on a European piece of machinery to what is already familiar. They have not taken account of the extent to which we are facing a totally new problem. My right hon. Friend will remember, as I do, occasions when a Government have come to the House at the beginning of the day determined to do something but, after listening to a great deal of argument, have resolutely got up and said, "We agree. We will not do this now. We will take it away and think about it in the light of what has been said." That is what I am suggesting that my right hon. Friend should do. No one will feel they have scored a victory off the Government. We shall all feel that the House has made a real advance in tackling a major political problem.
On the few occasions when I have heard Governments accept the wishes of the House in that manner it has nearly always worked out for the best. My right hon. Friend is in a position to render the House—and it is no exaggeration to say Europe, too—a considerable service. I hope that he will take the opportunity.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on this question of the Select Committees. I have always taken the view that the major weakness in the procedures of the House lies in the lack of a coherent Committee system. Until we establish such a system we shall constantly be up against the kind of difficulties we


are debating tonight, not merely in terms of European legislation but also in terms of domestic matters.
There is a curious contradiction in paragraphs 33 to 35 of the Report. In paragraph 33 the Report dismisses the possibility that we might use the technique of a Select Committee, and says:
The process of investigation, deliberation and report on the merits of a subject, inherent in the working of a select committee, is not suitable for urgent matters.
By implication, it regards all European legislation as urgent, which I do not accept, as there are many matters of general policy which evolve over years or months.
Having dismissed the Select Committee technique in paragraph 33, the Report says, in paragraph 34:
Your Committee therefore welcome the intention of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &amp;c, to examine documents containing instruments of legal or political importance in greater depth and to obtain evidence not only from Government departments but also from interested outside bodies and persons…. The Select Committee have in mind the possibility of setting up sub-committees to deal with various classes of instrument, especially those which they decide to scrutinise in greater detail.
Having dismissed the technique of the Select Committee investigation in paragraph 33, the Committee appears to commend it in paragraph 34. In paragraph 35 it welcomes it even more strongly by saying that this technique
will satisfy the need for a description and analysis, based on detailed investigation, of important and possibly complex issues in Commission documents. This description and analysis, together with the Minutes of the Evidence, will be of great value to Members and to the House generally in debating and eventually deciding on the merits of the documents.
Paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Report accept the principle of the Select Committee technique for dealing with European legislation. I part company with the Report where it says, in paragraph 35:
the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &amp;c, is pre-eminently qualified to carry out this task.
With all respect to the members of the Scrutiny Committee, I suggest that other Select Committees are better qualified to discuss, for example, energy or agriculture. For example, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, under

the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), has long experience of studying nuclear power, North Sea oil, energy conservation and related matters. That Committee could make a far better job of studying the Commission's proposals on energy policy in a European context, in view of the detailed study it has given to energy problems in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I am not happy with the implication that the Scrutiny Committee would be the best body to deal with that kind of problem, taking into account the enormous range of subjects with which European legislation is bound to deal. Unless there is a coherent set of specialist committees covering the main functions of Government, we are not likely to be able to deal successfully with the problems with which European legislation will present us.
The recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure move away from the Select Committee idea and fall back on the statutory instruments procedure. I agree that the Government's proposals are inadequate, even within the terms of this report.
It is preposterous to suggest that a Committee of this House may debate a problem such as energy policy, agricultural policy or transport policy in one and a half hours'. The suggestion is ridiculous. We cannot possibly support it. The same applies to the weird proposal to propose a motion or an amendment, to send it to a Committee which is not allowed to do anything with it except talk about it, and then to return to the House and ask for a vote on it. That is the most curious idea of Committee procedure I have ever come across. That is a contradiction of the purpose of a Committee, which must be to arrive at a considered resolution or recommendation for the main body to consider.
It is clear that the members of four different political parties, with widely different backgrounds and views about Europe and European legislation, are united in the view that the proposals to amend Standing Orders are inadequate, and that the procedure on the proposed amendment is ludicrous by any standards.
I add my voice to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham


(Mr. Stewart) in asking the Government to withdraw these proposals and to give them more mature consideration.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I support the Leader of the House—he seems to need it at the moment—in that I believe it is possible to reconcile with the proposals the views expressed in this debate by the majority of hon. Members. Many hon. Members have suggested what should be done in the future, and I agree with much of what they said. But that is not a good reason for retaining the existing practice of dealing with Community documents. The Leader of the House said that the matter was debated on the Floor of the House on one occasion. That debate was adjourned. The recommendations made are now floating in limbo.
I disagree with those who opposed the recommendations, saying that they should be delayed until the far future, when new Committees are created. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that we should create a new kind of Committee. However, I believe that we should agree to these proposals and take up the other suggestions made in debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he would reconsider the point which I made earlier by way of intervention. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is not present, as he said that I was wrong when I made that point.
I have looked up the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the other place. The terms of reference of the body in another place, which is the equivalent of our Select Committee, are wider than the terms of reference of a House of Commons Select Committee.

Mr. John Davies: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) had in mind the point now being made by the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend said that neither under the terms of reference in the other place nor under ours was it possible to have access to the working documents within the secretariat of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. English: I understand that. However, the hon. Member for Harrow, East

misunderstood me. The terms of reference of the other place are wider. It can consider documents emanating from the Council and going to other organisations, although I believe that it has never done so. However, it could exercise that power, just as Select Committees may consider documents emanating from the Commission. That is my point. I referred to the documents coming from the Council as distinct from those coming from the Commission. For example, an important set of documents is likely to come direct from the Council, without coming from the Commission. I refer to the proposals on political union.

Mr. Roper: A committee in the other place is considering the Lomé Convention. That document does not come from the Commission. It is a Community treaty. It must be treated in this House not by the Scrutiny Committee but by reference to a Standing Committee or by debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that apt illustration.
The right hon. Gentleman said that all proceedings of the Council were confidential. It would be wrong to give the impression that, like the Cabinet, the Council is bound by rules of secrecy. The Treaty of Rome provides that it may meet in private or in public, as it chooses. Cabinets never meet in public.
Many people in Europe have suggested that for legislative, as distinct from executive, purposes there should be at least a stage in the legislative process of the Council of Europe which is public. Successive rulings of Presidents of the Council of Ministers have made plain that "confidential" does not mean what we take it to mean. It means that any Minister is entitled to repeat in full what he said at the Council of Ministers' meeting but must not repeat what anyone else said. In other words, the "leak" is legal as distinct from being a mechanism of politics.
I agree with much that has been said about the different forms of Committees. Our Standing Committees are accidents. The House resolved not to have them less than 100 years ago. Until 1947, Standing Committees had the power of Select Committees as well as of Standing


Committees. We need not go into that. It can be considered when, in the next Session, my right hon. Friend sets up a Committee to resolve the whole procedure of this House. I do not like Standing Committees for any purposes, including legislative purposes. A Standing Committee is a ridiculous way of dealing with the Committee stage of a Bll. Let us deal with that and with this group of Standing Committees when the time comes. Meanwhile, these proposals are better than the arrangements we have had over the past 12 months. I suggest that we should support them, provided that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider alternative proposals for the next stage of European procedures.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: We have had an interesting debate, although it has not been a particularly happy one for the Lord President's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman said, at the beginning, that we were still feeling our way, and I should like to thank him for having put forward some proposals. They have at least served as targets for debate even if their inadequacies have been laid bare. The Lord President has earned the gratitude of the House for putting forward the proposals and—as the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said—if at the end of the debate he should withdraw his proposals he will in no way be according a victory to anyone. No one will be scoring points; indeed, the reverse. He will be scoring a point by taking notice of what Parliament has said and showing that he is flexible and anxious to meet the demands of Parliament.
The House will be indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) not only for his speech but also for his helpful and constructive rôle in dealing with a problem which is new to all of us.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) earned the gratitude of the House for the way in which he dealt with his argument which was widely endorsed in the debate which followed. Both he and my right hon. Friend made two criticisms which have been echoed again and again. First, they require the Standing Committee to be enabled to do more

than consider. They require it to be enabled to discuss a substantive motion which is capable of amendment. The second criticism, which I endorse, is that for the Committee to be limited in its powers to saying that it has considered matters of this importance is woefully inadequate. With great respect, the Lord President's suggestion that an amendment should be tabled in the House, that a discussion should subsequently take place in Committee, and that a Division, if required, should thereafter take place in the House, does not make much sense. I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will decide that that proposal does not stand up and will withdraw it.
Much the same can be said of the proposal that there should be a time limit of one and a half hours. The Lord President maintained that it was likely that the matters referred to the Committee would be of secondary importance. I think that he was largely led into that view by the false analogy that he has drawn throughout between "secondary importance" and secondary legislation. That analogy is invalid.
If the Standing Committee is to perform a useful rôle, from time to time it will consider matters of great weight and substance. To say that the Committee can have its fun for one and a half hours and no more is beyond what we should tolerate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford laid down the criterion which we should adopt, namely: does the Committee have an opportunity to influence events and to influence the thinking of the executive and perhaps those who are responsible for the framing of legislation inside the Communities?
As my right hon. Friend said, these proposals would result in the retention of power and initiative by the Government. Most of us have probably learnt by now that Governments, particularly when they are breaking new ground, are well advised at least to attempt to share power with Parliament.
I am obliged to refer briefly to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), whose noticeable absence we all greatly regret. If I were to describe his speech politely, I could say only that it was hugely silly and wholly irrelevant to the subject we are discussing.
The right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, at least earned the gratitude of the House by bringing us back to the discussion. I echo his plea that an attempt should be made to keep the papers—of which there is a great volume—numbered, marshalled and in some kind of order.
I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) carried the House with him when he said that ministerial assurances are not enough and that something more is needed when we are designing ways of changing the law. He was right in saying that the House should be grateful to the Lord President for tabling the amendments to Standing Orders, but I echo his counsel that, having tabled the amendments and having heard what the House has to say about them, he would do well to withdraw them. The right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that by doing so, in the long run the Lord President would be doing himself a service, in that the better chance that the new Committee has of doing its work properly the better chance has the Lord President of avoiding having the matter thrust back on his hands again and having to find time for debate on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) expressed his preference, as did others, for a Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) rightly came back to the point that we are here dealing with a wholly new development, that European legislation is wholly new in the history of this country and of Parliament, and that it therefore really demands new attitudes and new arrangements. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) was, I think, a little unkind to the Leader of the House when he accused the Government of adopting a very cavalier attitude—at least, I think the attitude of the Government will be shown to be the reverse because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will, in reflecting on this debate, withdraw his proposals. If he does, I am sure that we shall all be glad to acquit him of what the hon. Gentleman prematurely accused him of.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), having rebuked

the hon. Member for Rochdale, returned to the point that the Standing Committee, or whatever body it is, should really have a chance to influence events. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) was in favour of a Select Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) said that the right thing would be for the House to devise a special form of committee to deal with a special event. On the whole, I come down on that side. It seems to me that any analogy one raises is almost certain to be misleading, and that it takes one's feet into the same kind of quagmire as that in which the Government find themselves today.
I endorse what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said, including his interesting comment that our debates today are less well-attended but better-informed. I think that that last bit was over-generous about some of our debates, but undoubtedly today's debate deserves everything he said about it. I agree that it is unwise in these matters to rely too much on any analogy. The right hon. Gentleman said that hon. Members were forced to deny themselves the luxury of attending all our debates. I thought that that statement exceeded even his reputation for charm, good manners and generosity. Attendance at all our debates is not something which I would at any time be drawn into describing as a luxury.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) opposed the time limit as an unworthy affair, and I agree. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), for reasons, I concluded, more of chivalry than sense, supported the Leader of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and the Deputy Chief Whip, and anyone else who is listening, will at least see that the recording angel, if there is one in this place, takes note of the gallant conduct of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West.
One is left, after this very interesting debate, with the situation in which not one hon. Member has spoken in favour of the Government's proposals, except for the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, who gallantly was prepared to be the odd man out. I would be reluctant to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the proposals, because I think that they are well meant, but that is a very slender, emaciated compliment.

Mr. Edward Short: It is a big one from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman must get to know me better, and he must do a little more to deserve these things. I am giving him every opportunity to say that the Government make no claim to score anything in the debate. The Opposition make no such claim. Rather do we take the view that the right hon. Gentleman has served the interests of discussion well in putting forward these proposals, which at least serve as a target. But I think that he would be ill-advised to press them, bearing in mind that no one, until the last minute of the eleventh hour, could be prevailed upon from the back benches to say even one word in their favour.
I therefore plead with the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of his own reputation in the House, which I know he wishes to serve, to withdraw the proposals, which, though useful material for discussion, would, I believe, in practice not work at all well.

6.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerald Fowler): The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that we had gone further in this House and in another place with procedures for the scrutiny of EEC legislation than any other Parliament within the Community. I point out to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that if the present Government have got themselves into a quagmire, the Conservative Government avoided it by not entering the terrain of scrutiny at all.
Many Members have said that this time we must get it right. I suspect that we shall never get it right in the sense of finding an ideal procedure. The question is whether we can improve and learn steadily and continue to improve upon our procedures for scrutinising this legislation. The hon. Member for Harrow, East said that the Government had accepted none of the key recommendations of the Select Committee. I do not think that he can have meant that. We take our stand today primarily upon the acceptance of the bulk of the carefully worked-out proposals put by the Committee. But I am not suggesting that they are perfect or that, in the

light of this debate, we should not think again.
What I am saying is that, in the first place, there must be on-going observation of how our procedures work and on-going change, and in the second place, with regard to the time limit which has worried so many hon. Members, while we cannot withdraw our proposal, simply because the Standing Order to which it refers is also concerned with other matters, we undertake, if the House will pass it, to lay a further amendment in the near future to give effect to the general wish of those who have spoken in the debate.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has conceded the point about the time limit, in theory at least, but does not he agree that my amendment would deal with the situation, although it also relates to matters of motions as well, which perhaps he does not wish to concede?

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir, technically my hon. Friend's amendment would not be perfect. In any event, I do not wish to concede the other point dealt with by his amendment.
Several hon. Members have stressed that real power in dealing with this legislation ultimately resides with the Council of Ministers and that therefore power to call our Ministers to account should reside in this House. I believe that the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) said, "We call Ministers. They are our creatures." That is why we are unwilling to allow Standing Committees to pass substantive resolutions on Commission documents which, in the absence of a further resolution taken on the Floor of the House, the Government would be expected to observe in subsequent negotiations in the Council of Ministers. The hon. Member is right. It is this House which calls Ministers. We are this House's creatures. But we are not the creatures of a Standing Committee of the House—least of all one of changing composition.
As my right hon. Friend said, it has to be the House as a whole to which the Government are responsible for the conduct of affairs and it is the House as a whole which alone can charge the Government to take one course or


another on pain of the ultimate sanction—withdrawal of its confidence. That is why we must stand firm on that proposal.

Mr. Powell: Surely the Minister must see that the same argument would apply against any other Standing Committee, that it would be equally valid against allowing Standing Committees to alter a Bill.

Mr. Fowler: I was unaware that any Report from a Standing Committee on a Bill had passed through the House without the House noticing it. The difference is that every hon. Member has an opportunity, on the Report by a Standing Committee on a Bill, to express his view.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for intervening again, but this is one of the crucial points of these debates. The Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments would report to this House, so that, if they desired, the Government or, subject to our arrangements, any private Member, could challenge it. It is exactly like a Bill being amended in Committee and no further proceedings being taken by agreement if it is willed that it should so remain.

Mr. Fowler: We should be clear that what is proposed by those who wish the Standing Committee to debate, amend, to pass resolutions upon substantive motions is that all hon. Members may have the right of speaking but that only a select minority may have the right of voting. That is the proposal and that is why many hon. Members tonight, although they did not like the Government's proposal, did not much like the proposal of the Select Committee either.

Mr. John Davies: But then surely the inference must be reasonable, that in the event of a resolution to which the Government find themselves unable to give their accord, they should put down a motion in the House in order to reverse it. We should then have the opportunity of debating it—

Mr. English: It would be non-debatable.

Mr. Davies: As it is, it is to be un-debatable on amendments put down before the discussion has taken place. That is surely the height of the ridiculous from

the point of view of the work of the Committee and the House.

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the burden of the proposals before the House, which in essence came from the Select Committee, is that a substantive motion can be put down for decision in this House and that amendments can be put down to that substantive motion. What the right hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting is that one substantive motion alone should have precedence—that emanting from the Standing Committee—and that the Government should put down their amendments to that motion. That, once again, gives too much weight to the views of a small number of hon. Members—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend forgive me?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot spend all my time giving way—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fowler: Every one of my hon. Friends who is seeking to intervene—[Interruption.] I do not think that my hon. Friend spoke in the debate, did he?

Mr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have almost forgotten the point that I was about to put. Would he not agree that, in practice, what Members and the whole House will want to know is only one thing—did the Standing Committee find in favour of or against the proposal? If there is no difficulty in the Standing Committee, then Members may simply ignore the point, but it will spark off the Members of the whole House, just as a defeat of the Government in Standing Committee on a Bill does, if there has been a vote in the Select Committee.

Mr. Fowler: I think that this difficulty arises because of the point with which I was about to deal. Many right hon. and hon. Members who spoke tonight criticised my right hon. Friend for comparing all EEC secondary legislation with statutory instruments. In fact, he did not do so. What he did was offer the House a


procedure, based on the statutory instruments model certainly, to deal with items of secondary importance.
Here I come back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said in an intervention: it will be this House which will in any event debate matters of major importance and the Government's judgment of what are matters of major importance can be challenged by 20 hon. Members. Therefore, if issues of principle arise which should be debated in this Chamber, there is ample opportunity for those issues to be debated.

Mr. Powell: But surely the hon. Gentleman realises from what he has just said that the effect of denying the Standing Committee the opportunity to come to a resolution will be to force more and more of these matters on to the Floor of the House. If anyone feels that there should be a debate in this House or a debate at all on such a subject, he will stand up and resist its going to the Standing Committee.

An Hon. Member: Then put the amendments down beforehand to make sure.

Mr. Fowler: I think here we should wait and see—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] I said at the outset that we must have an on-going review of this procedure. The right hon. Gentleman may be right. He has sometimes been right in the past, but not always. I should be surprised if the House showed such irresponsibility as consistently to challenge the referral to Standing Committee of matters which frankly are trivial, provided that issues of principle can always be debated in this Chamber.
I was fascinated to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) repeatedly stress the superiority of Community legislation over our domestic legislation and argue therefore that all that legislation should, apparently, not only be discussed but voted upon in a Committee of this House in such a way as to bind Ministers—

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Fowler: If the argument had validity, it was an argument for debating all Community legislation on the Floor of the House and for referring none to Standing Committee. That would ensure

that most of the rest of our business went by the board.

Mr. Spearing: I must apologise. I do not think that I said what the Minister says I said. If I did, I did not intend it. What I said was that it would be ridiculous for a Committee to be appointed which could not consider amendable motions.

Mr. Fowler: I was alluding to my hon. Friend's argument about the "superiority"—I quote his exact word—of Community legislation over domestic legislation. Yet his argument subsequently was that if such Community legislation were to be referred to a Standing Committee it must therefore be practicable for that Standing Committee to vote upon it and thereby, apparently, to bind Ministers. That seems to me to be an illogical argument—

Mr. George Cunningham: Select Committees do not bind Ministers when they criticise them.

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend says that Select Committees do not bind Ministers. This is not a Select Committee but a Standing Committee, and many hon. Members have argued that in some way resolutions should bind Ministers. I was asked for an assurance that the Government would not commit us to any EEC document until it had been approved by this House.
Several speakers mentioned the possibility of amendments to the Government's substantive motion. The Government's substantive motion would be tabled before the Standing Committee debate, but it will be possible to table amendments before the House reaches a decision. That answers a point that troubled several hon. Members.
With regard to the two-stage scrutiny, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) asked who was to decide which documents would receive a two-stage scrutiny. We have undertaken to provide the House with information relating to the amendments agreed in the Council machinery in regard to documents involving major policy developments. The onus must be on Government Departments and Ministers to identify those amendments which should be reported to the House, but we shall need to keep in close touch with the


Scrutiny Committee and with its thinking on important proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) asked me to give an assurance that Ministers would not assent to propositions contrary to the express will of the House. I can do no more than to repeat assurances given by my right hon. Friend in the debate on 2nd May that the debate on any proposal which the Committee reported as being of extreme importance should take place before the Government assent to any Community legislation.

Mr. Gould: The Minister has given an assurance on a point which is different from the quest on I raised. It is one thing to say that assent will not be given until a debate has taken place, but another thing to say that assent will not be given unless it is in accord with the express wishes of the House.

Mr. Fowler: I take that point, but I cannot go beyond the assurance I have already given. It would be impossible in international negotiations if the hands of British Ministers were consistently bound behind their backs before they had entered into negotiations. We take seriously resolutions of the House on EEC proposals, and we shall ignore them only at the pain of withdrawal of the support of the House. But there is no point in giving assurances on such fundamental matters, which will mean that one should always have regard to every jot and tittle of every resolution of the House before entering into international negotiations.
I was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford about the numbering of EEC documents. He suggested that the system should be more comprehensible. I have every sympathy with him in that the EEC system is difficult to follow, but he would probably be more confused if we were to add an additional numbering system on top of the other one. We shall examine that proposal, and continue our consultation with the authorities of the House to see how EEC documents can be made more readily available, and we shall also look at their form, but I would be unwise to give any specific assurance on that matter tonight.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) made a largely irrelevant

contribution to the debate, but he rightly stressed that only parliamentary reform of a comprehensive nature would enable us to ensure that we were giving due attention to EEC documents and not doing so at the cost of other business of equal importance to this House.
I believe that that is the answer to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend and Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). My hon. Friend's argument was essentially that the Select Committee procedure was best and that we would be wise if we were to refer EEC documents, not to one Select Committee, but to a number of specialist Select Committees. His adherence to the proposition that we should have such specialist Select Committees covering every element of Government activity is well known, and I have some sympathy with him. But it is a matter with which we cannot deal in the context of the scrutiny of EEC legislation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave an assurance earlier this year that we shall be proposing the establishment of a Committee on parliamentary procedure as a whole. That is the right context in which to discuss such propositions. In the meantime, with the caveat I entered about time limits, I commend these amendments to the House.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have tabled an amendment to Motion No. 6. I take it that the first Question will be on the first Motion and that the Question on Motion No. 6 will not be put until later.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I intend to do. I shall first put the first Motion, Motion No. 2 on the Order Paper, then Motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which will be moved formally. Then Motion No. 6 will be proposed formally and the hon. Gentleman will be able to move his amendment formally and, if need be, there will be a vote. The hon. Gentleman can then move the second of his amendments, if he so wishes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1974–75, on European Secondary Legislation (House of Commons Paper No. 294).—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDER No. 3 (EXEMPTED BUSINESS)

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) be amended as follows:
Line 17, after 'provides', insert 'and proceedings on Commission Documents'.
Line 43, at end insert 'In this paragraph, and in Standing Orders No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees), No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) and No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c), "Commission Documents" means draft proposals by the Commission of the European Economic Community for secondary legislation and other documents published by the Commission for submission to the Council of Ministers'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDER No. 60 (CONSTITUTION OF STANDING COMMITTEES)

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees) be amended as follows:

That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing on Statutory Instruments) be amended as follows:—



Line 3, after 'Instruments', insert 'etc.'.



Line 5, after 'instruments' insert 'or Commission Documents (as defined in


5
Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business))'.



Line 23, at end insert' or



(iii) notice has been given of a motion relating to a Commission Document.'.



Line 27, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.



Line 35, after second 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.


10
Line 37, after 'instrument)', insert '(or Commission Document)'.



Line 47, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.



Line 50, after '3(ii)', insert 'or 3(iii)'.



Line 52, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.



Line 55, after 'thereon;', insert 'and, in the case of a motion relating to a


15
Commission Document, where an amendment is offered to that question, the



question on that amendment'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Amendment proposed: Leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert:

'Line 48, at end insert:
(4A) In the case of a Commission Document referred to the Committee, the Committee shall consider the document upon a motion relating thereto made by a Minister of the Crown to which motion amendments may be

Line 8, after 'instruments', insert 'or Commission Documents as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDER No. 62 (NOMINATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES)

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) be amended as follows:
Line 12, after 'instruments', insert 'or Commission Documents as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)'.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING ORDER No. 73A (STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

moved; and the Committee shall report their resolutions to the House" '.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 64, Noes 152.

Division No. 381.]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
George, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackintosh, John P.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Madden, Max


Bidwell, Sydney
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Biffen, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Mayhew, Patrick


Canavan, Dennis
Kerr, Russell
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clemitson, Ivor
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kinnock, Neil
Moate, Roger


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Molloy, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lee, John
Molyneaux, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Litterick, Tom
Newens, Stanley


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie
Noble, Mike




Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spearing, Nigel
Ward, Michael


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David


Prescott. John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wells, John


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Richardson, Miss Jo
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)



Rooker, J. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Roper, John
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Bryan Gould and


Sedgemore, Brian
Torney, Tom
Mr. Frank Hooley.


Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael





NOES


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Ovenden, John


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Park, George


Boardman, H.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Parker, John


Booth, Albert
Hatton, Frank
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hayman, Mrs, Helene
Pendry, Tom


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Penhaligon, David


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Huckfield, Les
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Rose, Paul B.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Campbell, Ian
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rowlands, Ted


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Sandelson, Neville


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Janner, Greville
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Stallard, A. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stoddart, David


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kelley, Richard
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Tierney, Sydney


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Tinn, James


Delargy, Hugh
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Doig, Peter
Luard, Evan
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Dormand, J. D.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dunn, James A.
McElhone, Frank
Weitzman, David


Eadie, Alex
MacFarquhar, Roderick
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Edge, Geoff
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
White, James (Pollok)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Whitlock, William


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ennals, David
Magee, Bryan
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marquand, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Faulds, Andrew
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Woodall, Alec


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael



Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. John Ellis and


Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. James Hamilton

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member wish to move his second amendment to the motion?

Mr. Spearing: No, Mr. Speaker.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments) be amended as follows:

Line 3, after 'Instruments', insert 'etc.'.

Line 5, after 'instruments', insert 'or Commission Documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business))'.

Line 23, at end insert 'or

(iii) notice has been given of a motion relating to a Commission Document'.

Line 27, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.

Line 27, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.

Line 35, after second 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.

Line 37, after 'instrument)', insert '(or Commission Document)'.

Line 47, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.

Line 50, after '3(ii)', insert 'or 3(iii)'.

Line 52, after 'instrument', insert 'or Commission Document'.

Line 55, after 'thereon;', insert 'and, in the case of a motion relating to a Commission Document, where an amendment is offered to that question, the question on that amendment.'

Oral Answers to Questions — PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION

7.28 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Renton Committee on the Preparation of Legislation (Command Paper No. 6053).
On 7th May 1973 the then Lord President appointed a Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). In May 1975 that Committee presented a very full and careful Report. I am sure that the House would wish me, right at the outset, to express our indebtedness to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his Committee for the valuable and comprehensive Report which they presented and for the sheer hard work which led to it.
The Report points to the startling fact that there has been no inquiry of this kind for 100 years. The last was the Select Committee of 1875. In that time there have been many complaints about the form of our legislation, and it is interesting to observe, from the Committee's historical chapter, that those who have been complaining have simply been echoing what has been said by many of our distinguished forebears for 400 years. I note that King Edward VI is recorded as having commented:
I would wish that…the superfluous and tedious statutes were brought into one sum together, and made more plain and short, to the intent that men might better understand them.
The purpose of this discussion is to facilitate the task of at least three groups of people. First in point of time are those who deal with a proposal. During the law-making process, in particular, Members of both Houses require to see clearly and without undue labour the proposal which they are asked to consider. Secondly, there are the lawyers and other experts, who are required to explain and apply provisions after they have reached the statute book. Thirdly, there are the members of the public who may be affected by it but who possess no special training or expertise in following legal technicalities.
In recent years there has been much discussion, very properly, about the need for involving in the law-making process


the public, for whose benefit the law exists, who suffer if it is inadequate and who are asked to observe and respect it. The public no longer play a purely passive rôle in law making. They ask for legislative intervention in an increasing number of fields. They insist on being consulted in the framing of the law and this entails producing proposals in a form which is intelligible to the public.
These objectives are not always mutually compatible, and much of the Committee's work was concerned with balancing the respective needs of these three groups. Since the publication of the report, Ministers and officials have, of course, been giving it detailed consideration, but before taking substantive decisions on a number of the more important proposals we wish to take account of the views of the House. I therefore hope that this will be a take-note debate, in both senses of the term. The Government's purpose is certainly to take note of what is said tonight before reaching conclusions.
I hope that the House will understand if I do not express any dogmatic conclusions. Indeed, it might be a matter of complaint if I were to do so, particularly if I were to deal with all the 121 recommendations. It would have defeated the purpose of the debate if the Government had taken decisions in advance of giving hon. Members an opportunity to express their views, and I should be reluctant to say anything which might appear to pre-empt an open-minded consideration of what is said.
What I propose to do in these opening remarks, therefore, is simply to indicate, in the general Order followed by the Report, the Government's initial views on a few of what seem to be the most significant of the Committee's proposals. Then, with permission, Mr. Speaker, I would hope to deal briefly at the end of the debate with any points that appear to call for reply, but basically I propose to take this opportunity to listen to views about the Report rather than to pronounce decisions of the Government upon it.
First, it is obviously fundamental to the quality of parliamentary drafting that there are sufficient and properly trained parliamentary draftsmen available to do the work. The Committee rightly regards

this as a matter of the highest importance, and proposes the establishment of a training course in drafting and the recruitment of more draftsmen as a matter of high priority.
It is right to say at this point that those of us who have had the opportunity of seeing at close quarters the work of the parliamentary draftsmen are compelled to express admiration for their quality as lawyers and for the clarity of their minds. The setting up of the Committee was in no way a criticism of their work. The draftsmen are themselves conscious of the difficulties imposed by an attempt to meet a variety of objectives, including that of maintaining and improving the quality of our legislation, and of constantly working under the pressure of inadequate time and chronic undermanning. I believe that the Report not only confirms the inevitable constraints on the aim of achieving simpler legislation but also emphasise the constructive efforts continually being made by the draftsmen within these limits.
The Government are aware that there is a shortage of draftsmen and fully share the Committee's concern in this matter. Their aim is a gradual building up of the strength of this office. However, as the House will appreciate, the highly specialised nature of the work necessarily limits the scope for recruiting people of the right calibre. Moreover, as experience has shown that it takes about 12 years before a drafsman can handle a big Bill under pressure, any major expansion of the body of draftsmen is bound to be a slow process.
The need for more draftsmen has arisen in recent years more quickly than the office can expand. I understand, however, that judging from inquiries recently received the prospects for the competition planned by the Civil Service Commission for 1976 are promising. As is to be expected, this career is attracting candidates of very high calibre. One more professional member has already joined and another is about to join the three full-time and one part-time draftsman working at the Law Commission. This will restore its full drafting strength, as proposed by the Committee.
The Committee pointed out also that in the past we have not encouraged an interest in statute law in our university


courses, and it proposed the establishment of a post-graduate course in legislative drafting, which might reduce the period of apprenticeship for new recruits and the training load on senior draftsmen. I understand that First Parliamentary Counsel has been for some time considering this and other training possibilities but, as the report recognises, it is not easy to find an experienced draftsman to run such a course.
The first important group of drafting recommendations made in the report, which has wide implications and to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, is the group in Chapter X referring to the possible scope for increased use of "statements of general principle" in the drafting of legislation.
The Report recommends only a cautious extension of the use of such statements in limited fields, normally not including Bills of substantial political or administrative content. But if this practice were widely adopted it could have very considerable effects on parliamentary procedure and the organisation of our business. This aspect of the Committee's Report, therefore, might best be considered in the context of the impending review into our procedure generally which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has at present under consideration. Meantime, it is a matter on which the Government would be particularly glad to know the views of hon. Members.
The next principal sections of the Report deal with detailed questions of drafting technique and conventions in legislation generally and—in Chapter XVII—in relation to fiscal legislation in particular. In general the Government welcome these recommendations as a valuable guide and encouragement to the best drafting practice. Clearly, however, in some instances there will be differences of opinion on the question whether a particular recommendation would in practice provide a more intelligible text.
For example, I understand that questions of increased printing aside, the draftsmen would not agree that schedules of amendment should normally be in tabular form of the kind recommended in Recommendation (28), and there are various other recommendations which will need to be critically considered

in the light of their potential impact on the already heavy burden of our printing resources.
Study of all these recommendations will continue in consultation, as necessary, with the Statute Law Committee and with the House authorities. Special consideration is being given by the Revenue Departments to the proposal concerning the drafting of fiscal legislation, but the views of the House would be welcomed.
The Committee was quite clear that in these matters its indications were not intended as inflexible rules and that Parliamentary Counsel must continue to be permitted a degree of discretion in adapting drafting techniques to the needs of particular statutes. Presumably it was not intended to suggest, for example, that the draftsmen must always use fractions and mathematic formulae automatically, regardless of context, or limit the length of paragraphs in some standardised way.
It should also perhaps be pointed out that a number of the suggestions made by the Committee, including some of the most important—for example, that on the practice of textual amendment, recommendation (41)—are already current drafting practice, as the Committee recognises. As the House will appreciate, all this area is very much an ongoing process.
I found myself particularly interested by the chapter on consolidation, because I was privileged for a number of years to participate in the work of the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. This provides me with an occasion to offer a tribute to the work of that Committee and its Chairman, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I do not normally have that opportunity, since consolidation matters are usually dealt with in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson). Parliament and the public may not always be aware of how well served they are and of the hard, detailed and not always exciting work of that Committee. Together with the Law Commission, that Committee has enabled us very greatly to expedite the work of consolidation.
I note the Committee's observation that, in spite of all our running, we are not even staying in the same place. The backlog is lengthening. The Government note what the Committee says on that matter.
I should like to refer now to the Committee's recommendations in two other fields—explanatory aids and computerisation. In each of these, very considerable progress has been made in recent years, and both offer practical hope of easing the task both of the draftsmen and of the consumer of legislation.
As everyone must recognise, I think, there are inevitable limits to the extent to which the actual text of many Bills can be made readily intelligible to all those who, for one reason or another, need to consult them. The availability of aids to understanding outside the legal text is, therefore, one of considerable importance.
As the evidence to the Committee shows, this can take many forms, both during the passage of legislation and after enactment. What is needed in a particular case depends on the nature of the Bill and the various classes of user involved. The Government fully accept the importance of this matter and will continue to develop these aids, adapting their practice, as the Committee proposes, to the circumstances of each case.
Within this general undertaking, however, I should perhaps enter an early reservation in relation to Recommendation (58) and its proposal that explanatory notes might be printed opposite the clauses to which they relate. This could involve a major additional printing burden, and I am afraid that the Government are unable to give any undertaking in this respect at present. I note that some members of the Committee also had doubts about the practicability of this proposal.
Concerning the Committee's proposals on computerisation, there is, as the House will be aware, a rapidly growing interest in the use of computers in relation to law generally. The Sub-Committee of the Statute Law Committee considering this question, chaired by Lord Justice Scarman, will be taking careful note of the recommendations made in the report, and I understand that two members of the Committee are now serving on this Sub-Committee.
I also understand that the Central Computer Agency supports the Report's recommendations, since, broadly speaking, they accord with the objectives

which both Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the agency have been pursuing. I think, therefore, that the Government's attitude to this section of the Report can be summed up as one of welcome, with an assurance that the recommendations have been noted by the appropriate bodies concerned.
I now turn to the recommendations in the Report dealing with new parliamentary procedures designed to diminish the need for complex statutes and for reducing their bulk. Some of these proposals would require legislation. The proposals include the possibility of a new procedure for parallel Scottish Bills and, where a parallel Scottish Bill has not been introduced, for some form of simplified re-enactment of the Scottish provisions. The Report also proposes the abolition of Appropriation and Consolidated Fund Acts and new proposals for incorporating drafting improvements in statutes. Such proposals, if implemented, would significantly affect both Houses. In the Government's view, it would be appropriate for these proposals to be considered further by a parliamentary body, either in the form of a Joint Procedural Committee or in some other way.
With regard to the proposal—No. 100—that there should be consultation between the two Houses on harmonising the form of amendments, this would seem to be a wholly advantageous move, and I believe that discussions are already in hand.
As to the Committee's recommendations with regard to the intervals between the stages of legislation, I do not think I can say more than that the Government accept their responsibilities in these matters—but, as the Committee and the House will appreciate, there are bound to be some occasions when these intervals would not be practicable.
The final section of the Report concerns the Committee's proposals for a new Interpretation Act as a further aid to the readier understanding of the effect of statutes. The Government fully recognise the need for legislation in this field. As to its scope the Report indicates that there is some controversy about certain of the Law Commission's proposals, and these are matters which will need to be considered further in consultation with the Statute Law Committee.
In conclusion, I wish again to thank the Committee for its realistic and practical approach to these matters. There is no magic formula which will produce clearer legislation, and the problems which arise generally do so from genuine conflicts of competing needs and objectives.
As I said earlier, what hon. Members, lawyers and the general public require of legislation can differ very widely. What is best suited to meet the structure of parliamentary debate may not be best suited to the needs of the courts. What is intelligible to the tax lawyer is often bewildering to the ordinary taxpayer. Draftsmen and Departments, I believe, are fully aware of these potential conflicts and have made considerable progress in recent years in reconciling them, both in the texts of legislation and by the development of explanatory material. But we have a long way to go, and I am sure that the effect of this Report will be to assist and accelerate that progress.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: While I welcome very much the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General that the Government do not take a dogmatic view of this matter and that they have not made any decision in advance of the debate, I nevertheless find it difficult to resist the conclusion, from the way in which he rather galloped through his speech, that perhaps this was not receiving quite the weighty attention from the Government that it deserves. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I hope that this very important report will be taken very seriously indeed.
I certainly echo what the hon. and learned Gentleman said in thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the distinguished members of this Committee for their extremely thoughtful and thorough piece of work, which was well overdue. It is certainly not just another report to be dismissed with a polite "Thank you." It is a serious study of a problem which the volume of legislation has made urgent, and it is a restrained and politely worded reminder of that legislative misconduct of which all Governments have been guilty as initiators and to which all of us have been the accessories.
I learn with horror from the Report that there are some 3,480 public general Acts of Parliament—or there were in 1974—in whole or in part in force. We have been adding to the statute book at the rate of 1,500 pages a year. If that fearful reflection does not cause all of us to shudder with horror at what we have done, we are lacking in modesty and shame. We lack unhappily the toughness of Lord Keeper Bacon who made the splendid comment:
All contrarieties should be scraped from our books.
How much we need a real scraper here to clean out those books and purge them of some of the messy contributions for which we are responsible.
The Report goes to the heart of the matter fairly early when pointing out that it is no good tinkering with it but that something must be done about the volume, it being quite clear that the machine we have is quite incapable of absorbing and digesting the volume of legislation which it is called upon to bear. Chapter 1, paragraph 1.10, dealing with this matter, deserves to be quoted in full:
We must add that little can be done to improve the quality of legislation unless those concerned in the process are willing to modify some of their most cherished habits. We have particularly in mind the tendency of all Governments to rush too much weighty legislation through Parliament in too short a time with or without the connivance of Parliament, and the inclination of Members of Parliament to press for too much detail in Bills. Parliamentarians cannot have it both ways.
The hon. and learned Gentleman echoed that point. The Report continues:
If they really want legislation to be simple and clear they must accept Bills shorn of unnecessary detail and elaboration. We cannot emphasise too strongly that the Government and Parliament have clear responsibility for the condition of the statute book.
My right hon. and learned Friend and his Committee have every justification for issuing that very sharp reminder.
Later in the Report, Chapter VII, paragraph 7.10 contains the following words:
Either the flow of legislation must be staunched so that the draftsmen may have more time in which to make their Bills more intelligible, or, if this is impossible, then in spite of the shortage of time, statutes must be enacted by Parliament in a form that will make it easier for them to be understood by those to whom they are addressed.


I call particular attention to those last words. How many of us in passing some of the indigestible verbiage which now defaces the pages of our statute book ever think of the burdens which we put upon the ultimate user whose duty it is to understand and implement it?
The Report rightly contains throughout its pages an implied tribute to the parliamentary draftsmen, and in paragraph 6.21 the Committee pays them a particular and well-deserved tribute. We who are the co-culprits in this matter with them would do well to echo that tribute and, indeed, trace the faults back to the thoughtless ambitions of Ministers whose practices are far more conditioned by their ambition than they are by thought for the result.

Mr. David Weitzman: On both sides.

Mr. Peyton: I did not distinguish in any way. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes pinching little remarks of that kind, but I have been careful to use the word "we" throughout. He has been in the House a long time, and he also ought to take his share of shame. He is certainly entitled to it.
The specific complaints made in the report are of direct importance, and we find them set out in paragraph 6.2 grouped broadly as follows. First, the language used is described as
obscure and complex, its meaning elusive and its effect uncertain.
The second charge is over-elaboration, caused by an excessive desire for "certainty".
Next, the structure is criticised—
The internal structure of, and sequence of clauses within, individual statutes is considered to be often illogical and unhelpful to the reader.
What a wonderful choice of words. To describe our modern statute law as "often unhelpful to the reader" is one of the most charming pieces of understatement that I have ever come across, and I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, to whose kindly hand I naturally attribute that remark.
The fourth complaint is directed to arrangement and amendment, the procedures for which
make it difficult to ascertain the current state of the law on any given matter".

The report goes on in greater detail later to point out the effect of not making the law clear. We must recognise that we deprive the citizen thereby of one of his basic rights, and I shall come back to that in a moment. Meanwhile, I draw to the attention of the House the comments reported in Appendix B. I shall not weary the House by quoting them all, but I mention, in particular, the magisterial rebuke of Lord Justice Russell in 1966 that
The drafting of this section appears to me calculated to postpone as long as possible comprehension of its purport".
That is a fairly adequate and terse condemnation which was, no doubt, richly deserved by the passage of law there involved but which could equally well be applied to many others.
We are grateful also to Lord Simon of Glaisdale—this appears on page 28 of the Report—for drawing attention to a passage in one statute which deserves to go on record once again in this Chamber:
For the purpose of this Part of the Schedule a person over pensionable age, not being an insured person, shall be treated as an employed person if he would be an insured person were he under pensionable age and would be an employed person were he an insured person.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to that. Perhaps it would apply to me.

Mr. Peyton: How can I possibly reply to such a modest claim on your part, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I should not for a moment associate you with such rubbish as that. I regard you as being in a very different category altogether, if I may say so with great respect.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have some compassion for the office which I occupy. According to what he has been saying, I might be created a superannuated man.

Mr. Peyton: I can only assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that not one of us would wish to see you in any way involved with such stuff as that.
Lord Simon is quoted on page 61 also as defining the objective which should be


in the mind of draftsmen and all legislators—
Desirably, the language of legislation should be as near to ordinary speech as precision permits".
Again, we come to the charge of over-elaboration—in other words, that Parliament is not content to enunciate broad general principles but seeks always for certainty. That desire for certainty is thought sometimes to emanate from a distrust of the courts, and I endorse here the comment made by two learned Scottish judges which is reported on page 29.
However, I believe that the anxiety of Parliament to search for certainty springs at least as much from the hostility of back-bench Members of Parliament towards Ministers, who are not always fully trusted by their erstwhile colleagues who often feel that they go to other fields for advice and are wont to forget the reasons that brought them here in the first place.
We on this side would wish warmly to endorse the suggestion made again and again in the Report that it is better to set out the principles in clauses and the details in schedules. On the question of the structure of Bills, I endorse also the Committee's recommendation that the intent should be made clear, since not only would this be an interesting and valuable aid to those who have to study a Bill—and in due course an Act—but it would be a valuable discipline on the Ministers who launch these measures on their way.
I endorse the suggestion that the law should be more happily arranged with a view to making possible convenient access to amendments where these have been made. The Report says on page 36:
The law should be readily ascertainable and reasonably clear.
It goes on:
To the extent that the laws do not satisfy these conditions, the citizen is deprived of one of his basic rights and the law itself is brought into contempt. Whatever may be the pressures to increase the volume and extend the scope of legislation, it is our firm view that legislation which is complex and obscure may for that very reason be oppressive.
Those words should be remembered and borne in mind by this Government and their successors. On the following page, the Report says:

The way in which the law if drafted presents, at times, an impenetrable barrier to understanding.
The Report is quite right to indicate the need for forward planning and an early start to legislative projects. We have abundant evidence that legislative projects are launched here without adequate planning, consulation or thought. Too often projects are brought in at the last minute. I am not blaming the parliamentary draftsmen, who have to labour under considerable pressures.
The Report points out how much consolidation of the law is handicapped by the insufficient numbers of available draftsmen. I warmly endorse the recommendation that the pace of consolidation should be accelerated. The Report says in Chapter 10, paragraph 3:
the interests of the ultimate users should always have priority over those of the legislators.
Legislators would do well to endorse that comment. The conflict between certainty and clarity is one to which we all ought to give greater attention.
The statement in the Report that the demands for immediate certainty have often been more insistent than necessary is abundantly well justified and, one might add, such demands are often self-defeating. The adoption of the "general principle" approach would lead, according to the Report, to greater simplicity and clarity. I agree with that and with the conclusion of the Report that a statement of purposes would be helpful in producing a degree of clarity. I hope the Government will take this recommendation seriously and act on it.
The Report recommends that amendments to the law should be made whenever possible by changing the text of the original law, and I think that that would be helpful.
There are many other matters which arise from this interesting and important Report, including the length of sentences used in Acts, definitions, long clauses, intervals between stages of legislation, the amendment of drafting errors after the parliamentary process has been completed, a review of the structure and language used by the Statute Law Committee, the need for a new Interpretation Act and the use of computers, all of which have to be dismissed, in order


that I shall keep my speech within decent bounds, much more shortly than they ought to be. They are, nevertheless, matters of very great importance to which I hope the Government will give careful thought.
I do not blame the Government, but I regret that the debate is taking place in such a thinly populated house. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire and his committee should be assured that the attention their Report deserves and will, no doubt, receive is not reflected by the attendance here. This is a very important subject to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire has made a signal contribution after a very distinguished parliamentary career.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: Looking around the House, I am impressed by the wealth of skilled and experienced parliamentarians. It may be considered rather impertinent that someone who has been a Member for less than two years should dare to comment on such an important subject. I hope that my remarks will be of some interest, as perhaps my views are, to some extent, those of an outsider, as I have not yet succumbed to the parliamentary embrace, as have others with infinitely longer experience of the House.
Our political and economic decline has led us to re-examine the workings of our traditional institutions. Since the war, we have managed to make the wrong decisions in almost every area of our public life. We do not have a lot of time to ponder over the mistakes, or over the reforms we ought to make, as though we were philosopher kings. We must respond very urgently to the need for institutional reform.
It is absurd of us to ask industry to adapt itself radically and change if we, in the machinery of government and politics, appear to be so loth to make radical changes in our own institutions.
I very much welcome the Report. It is a succinct document, and it would have been ironic if it had been accompanied by enormous volumes of evidence, like some other reports. The Report is a very good contribution to

the re-appraisal process through which we are going. It concentrates on one stage of legislation—the initial stage—but sets it against the general background of the legislative and governmental process.
In my analysis, I want to look at the three stages of legislation. The first stage is the drafting and consultative stage. This is entwined with the second—the Parliamentary stage. The third is the administrative stage, where statutory instruments are promulgated. Legislation is a multi-stage and highly complex process. It is almost a "system" and a characteristic of a system is that one part is totally dependent on another part.
It would be an act of folly to analyse one stage of legislation in isolation from the other parts. My critique is of the legislative process generally, setting this against a background of decision-making in Government.
The twentieth century has exhibited an enormous increase in the power of the executive. Alongside this there has been a remarkable decline in the power of the legislature, not just in this country. That decline is a universal phenomenon. There are those countries where legislatures, if they ever existed, are now extinct, and there are nations which have legislatures with severely truncated powers.
In this country our system exhibits the greatest concentration of power and authority upon the executive Hardly anywhere else is a Government nominally so free to make decisions without constraints, such as powerful local government, a written constitution and a powerful Upper House. Under our system the Government have enormous independence of action, and therefore much of the blame for the ills affecting society today can be placed upon their shoulders.
The executive may have adapted itself to changed circumstances, albeit unsuccessfully, but the power of Parliament has declined, is declining and will continue to decline, unless we are able to adapt its procedures to changed conditions. Winston Churchill said of Parliament, during the war, that all he wanted was compliance with his wishes, after reasonable discussion. We in this House would see the legislature having


a much broader rôle than simply discussing legislation and then allowing the Government to make the decisions they were going to make anyway. I am reminded of what was said by Frederick the Great, who remarked that his people and he had a wonderful arrangement. He let them say what they liked and they let him do what he liked.
Clearly, there must be a bridge between the talking and the doing. We talk in our Parliament. The word "Parliament" comes from the French word parler, which means to speak—to talk. We produce mountains of paper, but we must still question whether the bridge has been built between the discussion in Parliament and the end product—namely, the making of decisions. We call ourselves by delightful and honourable titles. In some ways I think that for all we do on some occasions, we could call ourselves "honourable and superfluous Members".
Nowhere is the subordination of Parliament to executive clearer than in the process of legislation. Some countries have institutions which they call legislatures, and they actually legislate. That is something of a phenomenon today. In this country legislation is a function of government. In America there is the separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. They are not completely divorced, because of the system of "checks and balances". In this country the Government dominate the legislature, and in some aspects they have great influence over the judiciary.
It would be stupid and incorrect to say that this Parliament is in any way approaching the rubber stamp of an institution like the Supreme Soviet, but, clearly, we are much closer to that concept of a legislature than we are to the American concept of a genuine parliamentary assembly. We in this country need a strong and efficient Government, but I do not see that that is necessarily incompatible with a strong and efficient legislature. One could have a powerful legislative institution hand in hand with a powerful executive.
Let us return to the reality of the British situation. The Government dominate every aspect of legislation.

Professor Griffiths said, in a very good book recently published:
The presentation of the proposal in the form of a Bill means that the ossification is well advanced. The most formative part of the whole process, the point at which the proposal may most significantly be changed is at the time when the departments are consulting with interests".
Where do we fit in, in this institution, at this vital stage? My contenion is that we figure hardly prominently in the pre-parliamentary stages.
I am not in any way opposed to a close relationship between the Government and pressure groups. This goes back centuries. It certainly predates the democratic revolution in this country. Some writers have called it the "Old Whig" theory of representation, which lays down that almost any decision taken by Government without active consultation with affected organisations is seen to be on the very margins of legitimacy.
There has therefore been a long tradition in British Government that pressure groups and interested parties are closely involved in the process of legislation and government. One cannot help wondering, however, whether what goes on behind closed doors between private and public bureaucrats is of more importance than what takes place in this institution, either on the Floor of the House or even in Standing Committee.
We need greater participation by Members of Parliament in the process of legislation. Ministers, civil servants and senior pressure group officials do not command a monopoly of knowledge, skills and expertise. In this House there is an enormous reservoir of experience, which is not being properly harnessed. The rôle of Members of Parliament could be much more dynamic in the process of legislation. Parliament should have a more positive and purposeful rôle. Today, a great deal of legislalation consists of managerial decisions, made by Government decisions, governed only broadly by statutory authority.
Professor Griffiths' book, entitled "Parliamentary Scrutiny of Government Bills"—a voluminous research—points out better than almost anything the impotence to which the House of Commons has been reduced. Professor Griffiths covered three years, in which he discovered that there were over 4,500 amendments moved and discussed. Of these, 436 were moved by


Government back benchers and only nine were carried against the Whips. Opposition Members moved 3,000 amendments and, of these, 131 were agreed to by Government and only 13 were carried against the wishes of the Government. By looking at the process of the amendments to Government Bills Professor Griffiths is able to ask why, as back benchers, we put so much time into legislation when the rewards are so few. He points to the small number of Bills which have been significantly amended as a result of pressure by Opposition or Government back-bench Members.
I have looked at the limited rôle of Members of Parliament in the pre-parliamentary stage, and I have touched very briefly on their limited rôle in the second or parliamentary stage. I come now to the third stage of legislation—the making of delegated legislation. One academic said that, for the constitutional purist, legal and parliamentary controls are the most important, but they are, however, the least effective. Parliament makes, generally, a more superficial examination of statutory instruments. This is in no way a criticism of those who are seated on the appropriate Committee.
We know how difficult it is, and how unsuccessful efforts have been in the past, to move a Prayer or motion to annul a statutory instrument. These are institutional controls, exercised by Parliament over delegated legislation. They are generally formal and minimal. Generally speaking, our examination of European legislation would fall into that category too.
What can be done to arrest this decline in the rôle of Parliament in the machinery of government today? I believe that we have surrendered a large number of our powers. Many of them have been usurped One can almost point to a conspiracy between Government and Shadow Cabinet to contain the reform movement in Parliament. If the boat were rocked, if more power were given to Parliament and back bencher, however much one might eulogise the reform movement in opposition, the work of government would be more difficult. One suspects that there is a conspiracy of Front Benches to prevent meaningful reforms.
I think that the time has come when we should no longer remain a passive forum. We must reform and modernise our own house. I believe that, first, there must be a closer involvement of Members of Parliament in the formative stages of legislation—a much more meaningful rôle in the parliamentary stage. As a believer in an expansion of the Select Committee system, I should like to see more Standing Committees—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Gentleman has spoken for 15 minutes. I have no objection to that, but I am still waiting for him to make some reference to the Report under discussion, concerning the preparation of legislation. I hope he will keep that in mind.

Mr. George: I had thought that the points I made were not superfluous, but were linked to the whole process of legislation.
Secondly, I believe that there should be greater facilities for Members of Parliament to perform their rôle as legislators more effectively. I believe, too, that a number of institutional amendments can be made to make this Parliament much more effective. I believe that one should accelerate the trend to full-time Members of Parliament, to allow us more time to examine legislation.
I should now like to make some brief comments on the Report. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made many useful suggestions, which I hope will be incorporated into our process of government. I am most interested in the chapter on the use of computers. I would not be able to participate in the process at all, with my dismal record in mathematics and science.

Sir David Renton: A start has already been made.

Mr. George: What the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the need for consolidation and simplification is most welcome, and obviously there cannot be many here who would oppose the employment of more parliamentary draftsmen. But there are one or two issues on which I oppose what the right hon. and learned Member and his Committee have written. I refer to the question of more


or less government. It is very easy to say that the more legislation there is, the less liberty there is for the people. I do not believe that there is any correlation between the size of the statute book and the degree of freedom enjoyed by individuals in this country. To say that if one diminishes the statute book one therefore enlarges freedom is quite nonsensical.
As one person said, if the volume of legislation were reduced, we could reach the situation in which freedom for the pike means death for the minnow. If we minimise the amount of legislation, we allow the more powerful sections within our community to take advantage of the absence of legislation. As a Socialist, I certainly feel that we should legislate more, and make this institution a more efficient machine for translating into reality the wishes of the electorate, of the parties, and of this legislature.
The next objection I make concerns the great support that the Report appears to give to the European system of law. There will be more and more problems arising as a result of the incompatibility, almost, between our own tradition of law and the European tradition of law, which, as was said, is based on Roman law and later developed by Napoleon, the arch-democrat.
The European tradition of legislation appears to be to express the law in terms of general principles and to leave it then to the courts or to the Government to fill in the details. The last thing I want to do is to allow the judiciary more flexibility in interpreting. What we have done in this country is to reduce the flexibility of judges, and this is something that I generally support. The general background of the judiciary is such that I am not totally inspired by its analysis of a situation. It is usually based on a very limited social experience. I have reservations about any system which would allow judges more opportunity of interpretation.
Legislation is very complicated, and could in many ways be made simpler. I am anxious to emphasise my view to the House that in dealing with legislation this institution has become an unsuccessful institution.
A hundred years ago, Walter Bagehot wrote that our political system could be divided into two parts—the "dignified"

and the "efficient" elements. The dignified were those who were part of the process of government but did not really do anything. Crossman made this point in a book about 10 years ago, when he said that we have, in Parliament, moved out of the efficient sector of government into the dignified sector of government and politics.
I believe that if the proposals of this Report, along with the other reforms that other hon. Members and I have mentioned, could be translated into reality, Parliament could be plucked out of this limbo, in which it has little importance, and enabled to play an important rôle in the machinery of government—a rôle, I suspect, that it has long since lost.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The Session that mercifully comes to an end next week has been an agony for the legislative process. It is the climax of a series of Sessions each piling agony upon agony. The reason is that government has made exorbitant demands, first, upon parliamentary counsel, secondly, upon Members of Parliament, and, thirdly, upon the printers, each of those categories being almost broken down in the past decade as a result of government's exorbitant demands upon a machine that is not equipped to deal with the load that it is now made to bear. Until government modifies its demands upon the legislature in the way of which the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke, no amount of valuable recommendations such as those in the Report will cure the problem that we face.
There are 120 recommendations, most of which I support, but they do not deal with the inhibiting factor that makes us so ashamed of the products of our labours, the factor mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) which is lack of time, energy and opportunity owing to the over-loading of the machine.
It is not only that. The statute book has been used by government not for the purpose of making law but frequently for the purpose of making propaganda. For example, I remember the old statute setting up nationalised corporations, which usually began something like this: "It shall be the duty of the Gas Board to provide clean gas at reasonable prices


throughout the realm." That is a duty for which there is no sanction if it is broken, a duty which is impossible to observe in modern circumstances, and which, when it was put on the statute book, was intended not to be law in any sense that we know but to be propaganda. That is one among many of the sins that government has committed.
Secondly, there is a reference in the Report—although I think that the vice is much worse than the Report indicates—to the order in which the various sections of Bills are often placed. They are often placed in such a way as not to lead the mind naturally on a logical process from one section to another but to enable the Committee stage to go as easily as possible from the Government's point of view. Some very important measures are often put in schedules, which are dealt with when the Committee is extremely exhausted and therefore go through much more readily. That is an abuse of the legislative process.
A new and horrifying abuse has grown up, started, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, when he was Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, in his Prices and Incomes Bill. That abuse is to put into a schedule the whole White Paper upon which the statute is founded. That is the ultimate in propaganda and the lazy man's solution. The schedule is put on to the Bill with a vague phrase such as "The board shall have regard to the considerations set out in the schedule"—an enormous White Paper—without emphasising which considerations shall have priority, which shall be binding, or which the Government fervently hope will be abandoned. We have had another example of that in the present Session with some of the Bills emanating from the Department of Employment. Government of all complexions has been guilty of debasing the legislative process. Those stratagems are part of that debasement.
I come to that part of the recommendations that affects me. I do so briefly, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. In particular, I see here some of my hon. and learned Friends who know more than I do about the process in question.
When I speak of that part of the recommendations that affects me I refer to those concerning the Statute Law Committee, a body which I first joined more than 20 years ago. Although I was then, and still am, its least distinguished member, I think that I have been on it for longer than anybody who is now there. It is described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his colleagues as exercising
a very healthy, expert and well-informed…oversight of public and private Bill legislation generally.
We are very grateful for that commendation, but I regret to say that we meet only once a year, because the distinction of that body is such that everybody in Whitehall, Westminster and the Strand who is anybody is there, and only once a year can the Committee be gathered together altogether. That happens in December, under the distinguished chairmanship of a succession of Lord Chancellors. I am not sure that our "healthy, expert and well informed oversight" is quite as continuous as my right hon. and learned Friend would have us believe. However, it is nice to have these commendations, particularly when they are the preface to a suggestion that we might meet rather more frequently. In recommendation 108 the Committee recommends that
The Lord Chancellor should arrange for the Statute Law Committee to keep the structure and language of the statutes under continuous review.
Although it meets rather infrequently that is already one of our obligations. We are also urged to
review the carrying into effect of those of our recommendations that are accepted,"—
that is the Committee's recommendations—
in particular our recommendation with respect to textual amendment".
It is said that we should
publish reports (to be laid before Parliament) from time to time, but not less often than every three years.
So we have to show something for our annual meeting in future.
Those recommendations are most important. There ought to be a body that has a continuous and ongoing responsibility for duties which may appear


to be small and detailed duties but which are immensely important in the context of parliamentary draftsmanship. I hope that, even though it is so difficult to get together, our Committee will meet once again in the course of the year.
These are excellent recommendations, with the emphasis on explanatory memoranda, with a desire for greater clarity and for legislation based on principles rather than on the process of stopping up every conceivable hole—which is the present attitude, particularly in fiscal statutes.
I found the reading of this Report a most interesting and instructive operation. I did not think it would be so, given the terms of reference on a subject which is by its nature rather arid. My right hon. and learned Friend managed to make it a most interesting matter.
For all of these reasons we hope that the Government, and shortly the next Government, will take the Report to their hearts and place the burden of its implementation upon one pair of shoulders high up in the Government. Unless that is done, it will be docketed and simply approved but not activated. If it is activated, perhaps we shall see that the statute book is no longer the disgraceful wastepaper basket that it often is now.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I listened with great interest to the philosophical discourse of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). There was a good deal of truth in much of what he said.
I prefer to come down to earth. As one who has been in this House and practised in the law courts for many years, I have always been deeply interested in the subject matter of this debate. On many occasions I have drawn attention to the lack of simplicity and to the involved language used in Acts of Parliament. How difficult it often is for the layman—and sometimes for the lawyer—to spell out the real meaning of an Act. How often has the attempt to do so led to protracted and expensive litigation. In Appendix B the Report refers to some such cases. There are many more.
I welcome the Report. It is long overdue. It renders a service in focusing attention on a problem. Everyone is deemed to know the law and is called upon to obey it. But how can we obey a law unless it is couched in language that a layman can understand? All too often there is a slavish adherence to precedent. There is elaboration due to the desire to cover every possible contingency. We all recognise that our draftsmen are skilful. Their work is admirable. However, on many occasions they are faced with conditions which make their task extremely difficult.
Fiscal legislation is a special case. By its nature it demands exceptional treatment. But even here there is scope for greater simplicity and for the use of less complex language. There is great force in the view put forward 'that all Governments—I emphasise that—create initial difficulties in that they attempt to enact too much legislation in too short a time. They desire to bring into effect as quickly as possible the promises they made as a party in their manifestos. When a Government attempt to do too much too quickly they place a heavy task on the draftsmen. Insufficient time may well lead to unsatisfactory drafting and the need for legislation of a corrective nature at a later date.
Political parties often draw up preparatory drafts of the measures which they intend to bring in, if elected. Perhaps if more care were taken in preparing such draft Bills under expert advice, they would form a useful base on which the draftsmen could build when the party succeeded in obtaining office. There are cases where it is necessary to put on the statute book quickly measures to deal with an emergency or a pressing need. But in the main there should be ample time for the consideration of a Bill, enough time between the various stages, and enough time for the formulation and detailed consideration of amendments in Committee and on Report.
I am a strong believer in gradualism. I think that one step should be taken at a time, and that only when that step has been taken, and has accomplished its purpose should we build upon it, step by step. Surely it is better that legislation should be dealt with in a more leisurely fashion so that we can avoid the danger of ill-digested legislation.
The Report is right in stressing that in principle the interests of the user should always have priority over those of the legislators, and that a Bill should be regarded primarily as a future Act. Yet how often do the Opposition, of whatever party—I emphasise that—in their desire to delay or defeat a Bill, treat it as a game and engage in antics which make it a parliamentary sport? Let us take a recent instance. I refer to the debate on Report of the Hare Coursing Bill. Hours were spent discussing amendments to define the simplest of words. Indeed, the Chairman of the Committee which drafted this very valuable Report also joined in the sport. I must not criticise the Chair. However, I often feel that the occupant is merciful in his application of the rule on tedious repetition.
Chapter XIV of the Report deals with the need for consolidation. Often it is necessary to refer to a series of Acts to understand the state of the law. Consolidation is of paramount importance. The Report refers to the need for more draftsmen to speed up the process. That is a task which should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. I welcome the assurance of the Solicitor-General that the Government are taking that matter seriously.
There are many matters in the Report that can be touched upon. A great deal of time and labour could be saved if, when an Act is amended, a schedule could contain the complete text of the Act so amended. The date on which various sections of an Act come into force sometimes causes confusion. Should a Bill set out the general principle, leaving details to the schedule? Should there be published a White Paper making clear the effect of the legislation? Should an explanatory memorandum be published for every Bill? Should publicity be given to the meaning of new legislation so that the public can be made aware of the changes that are being made? Those are some of the issues which require careful consideration.
I hope that action will follow the publication of the Report and our discussion tonight. The danger is that the Report and the discussion may be regarded as an academic exercise in considering the preparation of legislation, and

that the Government—indeed, every Government—will go their way as they have before and there will be little practical result.
I listened carefully to what the Solicitor-General said. I hope that the Government will take seriously the issues put forward in the Report and that where the proposals can be introduced, they will be introduced without delay. I emphasise that if every Government dealt with legislation in a more mature way, more carefully and more slowly and did not impose an immense amount upon the House, the result would be better and more comprehensible Acts of Parliament.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: Many of us on the Opposition benches will agree with the cogent analysis put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman). It is pleasant to find such a broad measure of agreement between the two sides of the House, at least on the analysis if not on the conclusion to be drawn from it.
No one who has been concerned either politically or professionally with legislation has not sought for simpler, more succinct and clearer legislation. Lawyers, perhaps unfairly, blame the parliamentary draftsmen. I have no doubt that parliamentary draftsmen complain of Ministers and that Ministers complain either of the Opposition or of the governmental machine.
The idea that legislation can be simplified by a sleight of hand or by small technical adjustments has been exploded by the analysis made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his admirable Committee. I echo the tributes that have been paid to them. Their Report is workmanlike and painstaking and throws a great deal of light on an impenetrable subject. The Report is a rich quarry to which we shall return over the years when we come to debate this subject. I certainly do not conceive that this will be the last occasion on which we shall complain of the quality of the legislation that emerges from this House.
There are some small technical improvements that could be made, and most of them have been detected and enlarged upon by my right hon. and


learned Friend and his colleagues. It would assist if interpretation were standardised, if the interpretation of all phrases and words which are to be interpreted came either at the beginning or at the end and if the words so interpreted appeared in the text in italics so that the fact that they are interpreted would not be overlooked.
I hope that in future we shall avoid referential legislation. I know the temptations in that regard, but it is better to spell out at length the precise passage to which we wish to refer rather than to refer to a mass of statutory provisions that may be contained in another volume of legislation. I should like to see more frequent and more comprehensive consolidation. I suffer in my professional life from the fact that the taxing statutes have been partially consolidated by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the administrative measures have been consolidated by the Taxes Management Act 1970, while the measures relating to capital gains tax have not yet been consolidated.
The Solicitor-General said that there has been dramatic improvement in the recruitment to the draftsmen's office. I am delighted, but that will not solve the problem. All the same I commend the possibility that with more draftsmen all taxing statutes, whether they deal with capital gains tax, administration or questions of liability, should be consolidated into one overall measure which would be easy for those concerned to refer to.
I have a practical suggestion about the form of Bills presented to the House. I would like to see the Chair rule on whether Bills are in due form. I hesitate to suggest that the Chair should have the added burden of such an onerous duty, but I believe that in an impartial manner, with the assistance of counsel to Mr. Speaker, it could determine and certify in advance whether the basic rules for constructing legislation had been adhered to. That might eliminate some of the sloppier outpourings of the overworked governmental machine.
I regret the tendency of radical administrations—I do not necessarily have this one in mind, although my example relates to one of their measures—to cast overboard the experience so slowly and laboriously garnered from previous Acts in the same area. I had

the doubtful privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the first Finance Bill of this Session. It was largely taken up with the capital transfer tax. I appreciate that the tax was new in concept, but it did borrow a great deal from earlier legislation on estate duty—or could have done so.
However, with a certain arrogance—I hope that it was not genuine but somehow I detected it—the Government chose to brush aside experience gathered over the years and instead to construct an entirely new legislative framework for the tax. The results have not yet been fully felt by the country, but I forecast with confidence that we shall have inflicted on us a morass of amendment and detail over the years to come as long as this measure is allowed to remain on the statute book. I hope that the Solicitor-General will bear that point in mind. We are well aware that the Government have other great radical measures in mind for us, but I hope that at least they will build them to a degree on the experience of earlier measures.
But at the end of the day, we have to look a little deeper even than the Renton Committee was permitted to do. I regret that the Committee was not empowered to consider the legislative process.

Sir David Renton: The pre-legislative process.

Mr. Rees: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct—the pre-legislative process. If my right hon. and learned Friend and his Committee had been allowed to consider the formulation of policy on these important matters, to analyse the translation into legislative form and to draw conclusions, I am sure that we would have had an even more helpful and constructive report. It was as idle to ask that distinguished Committee to consider the details of the legislative process without considering the pre-legislative process as to ask them to examine sin without allowing them to cross-examine the Devil.
I agree that we must consider whether it would be possible to have full exposure of legislation before consideration in this House. Of course a Select Committee is considering a wealth tax and another has considered taxation of dividends—two particularly technical matters—but the


detail of legislation has rarely if ever been exposed to this kind of scrutiny.
The only venture in this field that I recall lies to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) when Chancellor, who set out in a White Paper the form of a Bill which might have put personal taxation on a current year basis. That was a worthwhile experiment and I am sorry that it was not followed through then—possibly due to the unfortunate result of the 1964 election—or since.

Mr. Graham Page: May I remind my hon. and learned Friend of the valuable Law Commission Reports which have included draft Bills as annexes and have been helpful in doing so? That might be extended to other legislation as well.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has a comprehensive knowledge of these matters. That is a constructive suggestion which I would endorse. Whether it be done through the Law Commission or through some form of Select Committee or merely by publication and the invitation of submissions from the general public, particularly those professional bodies which are interested, I care not. But this obsession with secrecy which all administrations exhibit is one of the root causes of the imperfect quality of the legislation presented to both Houses.
To return to the theme of the Committee, perhaps some hon. Members who are more defeatist than myself may feel that a complex civilisation demands complex legislation. I hope not, but it is to be observed that Governments of both parties have succumbed in recent years to the temptation to a greater volume of legislation and to greater detail. This afternoon, I looked at the bound volumes of the statutes in my chambers. In 1972, there were three volumes with 2,565 pages. I show my utter impartiality by going back to 1972. In 1973, there were three volumes of 2,248 pages. In 1968 there were only two volumes, admittedly, but again 2,532 pages. In 1967 there were two volumes of 2,206 pages. I hope that we shall come to judge our administrations by the volume of their legislation. By that test, most administrations, at least those since 1964, have failed dismally.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said that there is a conflict between certainty and clarity. I am not sure whether that is so, but—this is where I commend, if I may do so, one recommendation of the Renton Committee—Governments should be content to legislate in broad principle and should eschew the lengthy and complex definition and the attempt to cover every contingency. That way lies disaster.
Nor do I believe that that objective is attainable. We have had inflicted on us for a decade legislation, particularly fiscal, in which the Government have tried to cover every detail, every avenue of avoidance, and as a result have produced pages and pages—section after section, schedule after schedule. Indeed when I look back and think of misspent nights upstairs in Committee dealing with details of fiscal legislation, I wonder whether at the end of the day the consumer—whether the individual taxpayer or those who advise him—is any the wiser about the detail of the statutes we have enacted.
Furthermore, I believe that Governments must learn to accept the decisions of the courts. There is a consuming arrogance in Government that as soon as the courts have given a decision that conflicts with the Government's preconception about their legislation, they rush through amending legislation immediately which is often retrospective in character.
I hope that I may be permitted to give one small example of a case in which I was involved. A complex measure was introduced into the Finance Bill 1972, lodged obscurely in the twenty-third schedule, which attempted to redefine the rights of preference shareholders—a matter of some importance to those shareholders. The case did not primarily affect the Inland Revenue and, because the legislation was a little obscurely drawn, one group of shareholders felt obliged to go to the courts to test the matter and the Revenue was offered the opportunity to appear in that case but declined to do so. Some hon. Members may know the case to which I refer, the case of Sime Derby, a case heard this summer. The decision arrived at was in a sense contrary to that which found favour with the Revenue. The Revenue refused the opportunity to appear in that case, but almost immediately following the decision


a junior Minister of the Crown put out a statement to the effect that owing to the confusion resulting from the judge's decision, the Government proposed to introduce a provision in the next Finance Bill which would be retrospective in effect and which would reverse the judge's decision. That is the kind of arrogance to which I refer—and it is peculiar not only to Socialist Governments but to Governments of all complexions. I believe that the country finds that attitude profoundly distasteful.
The remedy is simple. Governments should be content to lay down broad principles and the objectives they seek to achieve. If questions of detail are resolved in a sense they find unfavourable, they should live philosophically with it, unless real hardship and injustice results. They must not on a whim rush in some new corrective measure that will probably be as obscure and detailed as the measure which they have sought to correct.
Some will say that if Governments choose to legislate for broad principles only no certainty will be achieved. I have tried to make the point that certainty is not always attainable in certain areas of activity. Let me instance taxation matters in which I claim a professional knowledge. That is an area of legislation which has become most complex. For example, the concept of an allowance in respect of relief for wear and tear was introduced in a short provision of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1893. Seventy years later the whole area of capital allowances is dealt with in 100 sections of the Capital Allowances Act 1968. Some will object that this is not a fair comparison because questions of balancing allowances and charges not dealt with in 1893 have been introduced. The point I wish to emphasise is that there is no greater certainty now with the present volume of legislation on tax issues than there was in 1893. The courts and practitioners had no more difficulty in those days in determining taxpayers' rights than they do at present.
At the end of the day, as I have said, there are some underlying general questions which we must resolve, which to a degree were touched on by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). I agree to a certain extent with his analysis, although I dissent violently from some of his conclusions.
There is at present an imbalance in our public or constitutional life. Parliament, manipulated to a great degree by the executive, has arrogated to itself the right to legislate for every aspect of our national life and in the process to turn our judges into mere lexicographers. There is no longer any balance between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
Parenthetically, I find the criticism levelled at the Bench by the hon. Member for Walsall, South rather distasteful, and I found his interpretation of our institutions in class terms, indeed, in Marxist terms, rather unattractive. I think he quite misunderstood the rôle of the Bench, which should not be a subjective rôle but should be to attempt to do justice with scrupulous impartiality.
I remind the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the Solicitor-General, of an observation made by a very distinguished member of the Upper House and a member of the Judicial Committee, Lord Thankerton. It will not be found in any law report. It was told to me by an advocate who took part in the particular case. Lord Thankerton made it to the then Solicitor-General, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill—for whose forensic powers and, indeed, for his political powers I had and still have respect. Lord Stow Hill on that occasion was pressing a rather literal construction of a difficult passage of a taxing statute on that Judicial Committee. Lord Thankerton said to him,
Mr. Solicitor, you and your clients"—
by which he meant the Government—
should understand that their lordships conceive it their function in this House to do justice even in a tax case.
That is something, I regret to state, that cannot always be said of our deliberations in this House.
The most constructive conclusion, therefore, that might emerge from this debate is that we should henceforth exercise a little moderation and self-discipline in our legislative proceedings, that we should not press for or accept detailed and complicated measures, and that we should legislate in terms of broad principle and leave the detail for consideration by the judiciary—detail which through pressure of time and party conflict we are probably ill-adapted to resolve.
If we accept this self-discipline and if we accept the practical measures which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire and his distinguished colleagues have put before us, there is just the faint chance that future generations may enjoy from this House rather better legislation than has come out of it in previous years.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I start by echoing the one point upon which everyone is agreed: Yes, we should all be very grateful to all the members of the Committee whose Report we are considering—and we should be very proud of the part played by our colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), as its chairman.
All that is very right and proper, so long as we all, starting with the executive, also appreciate that all of that effort will be totally wasted unless the executive steel themselves to the decision to which one executive after another have failed to steel themselves—namely, that action must be taken; that all the action that is needed can be taken by an executive with a parliamentary majority; and that nothing will happen unless and until some executive does take the necessary action. It is at that point that despair begins to creep in.
In March my right hon. and learned Friend wrote a letter to the Prime Minister enclosing the report. In April he had what seems to have been a formal acknowledgment. In September he received another letter from the Prime Minister. This correspondence has now been made public. It chills my heart. The first page of the Prime Minister's letter shows the greatest complacency about a recommendation which could not be made within the terms of the Committee's Report because it did not fall within its terms of reference, but which the Committee's chairman, in his letter to the Prime Minister, made clear was of overriding importance. I refer to the question of ministerial responsibility for the law.
I despair, too, because the Solicitor-General galloped through his speech without really saying much beyond making a few comments about this, that or the

other recommendation. He offered little more than a hope of some action on a few recommendations. And I despair, because of the history of the subject.
Let me first quote from a debate in '56, when the Member who was speaking said he supposed we should have to live with existing legislation—it was too much to hope to put all that right—and went on:
But when we come to our current legislation, we must acknowledge that the magnitude of the evil requires that it should be grappled with at once.
All the speakers in that debate agreed with that proposition, just as all the speakers in this debate will agree with the proposition that there must be immediate action—but there has still been none. I should have given the House the reference to the quotation. It is in the Parliamentary Debates of 1856, Vol. 140, col. 622.
Let us hope that this time the Government will determine to take action. If they do, they will have a large measure of support from the Opposition, because there is a widespread and strong feeling that the executive must take action and the House must support it.
There are one or two recommendations on which I should like to commend in a moment, but may I first stress the point which has been made so many times by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire and which was made tonight by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I do not believe that any significant progress could be made, even if all the recommendations were to be adopted, if the volume of legislation remained as it is. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who was one of my opponents in Southport a few years ago, advocated more and more legislation. He said that the less legislation there was the more the position of the already strong was strengthened. How wrong can anyone be? The more legislation we pass the more necessary it is for people to turn to professional advisers to gain any idea of what the law is—and so the more the position of the already strong is strengthened. No, we cannot hope to make any improvement in the quality of legislation unless and until we reduce its quantity.
But provided that we do do that, the Committee's recommendations offer much scope and hope for improvement. May I mention some which I find particularly attractive. The first is Recommendation (19):
A statute should be arranged to suit the convenience of its open users".
and Recommendation (39) says:
The needs of the eventual user of the statutes must be given priority over those of the legislator".
Those are especially attractive propositions because they are so obviously right and because it would do the House so much good in the country if those for whom we legislate were to think just for once that we were putting their convenience first. We owe it to them. If we had the sense to do that, it would meet with a very good response from those concerned.
The recommendation that there should be statements of purpose and of principle is well worthy of close consideration. I hope that it will receive consideration and that appropriate steps will be taken.
As for the proposal for the recruiting of parliamentary draftsmen, everybody agrees about it, but everybody has agreed about it for goodness knows how many years. I only hope that something will now be done.
I agree very much with the recommendation that whenever possible textual amendments should be used. I also agree with the reasoning of the Committee in seeking to accelerate consolidation, both because it is so much more convenient to the practitioner and the public when the law is consolidated in one statute, and because it is so much easier to adopt the textual amendment practice when one has a consolidated statute upon which to operate.
I now turn to one other aspect of the matter which I think is the most important of all. As appears from the Report, I had the privilege of giving evidence to the Committee, and there are some kindly references in it to that evidence. What is not said is that the part of my evidence which I considered the most important of all, and the one recommendation which I thought more important than all the rest put together, could not be countered or referred to because it was outside the terms of

reference. That was the view, which I hold very deeply indeed, that we shall not make any real progress until there is more closely defined ministerial responsibility for the quality of the law—not the political content but its quality.
This was what the debate in 1856 was all about. A Member called Napier was moving a motion, saying that a Minister should be appointed with personal and specific responsibility for the quality of legislation, and everybody, including the Government, agreed with him. The only question was whether the Minister should be in the Cabinet. In 1857, there was another debate in which another lawyer, the Member for Midhurst, said that he was not going to speak for long, because he was afraid that the great cause of law reform might be talked to death. This is a real danger. The House has talked about this subject for so long that it will talk it to death unless it does something about it.
The history of the matter from then on is set out in a report of the Committee of the Society of Conservative Lawyers published in 1971, over which I had the honour of presiding. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was the secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) was also a member. We drew attention to some of the recommendations made during the course of the last 100 years and more on the subject. One of them was a recommendation of Lord Haldane in 1918. He said that a new Department must be created and that some of the administrative burden of the Lord Chancellor could be taken off his back and shouldered by this new Department, leaving the Lord Chancellor free to "watch over and master legislation." He was to be the link man between the parliamentary draftsmen and the Department. He was of course to tell the draftsmen if he thought they were doing their job badly.
But that was only half the story. The Lord Chancellor was also to protect them against the Departments—which seem often to make wholly unreasonable demands upon them. Although the parliamentary draftsmen must, and I have no doubt would, accept their share of


the criticism, all too often it would seem that the instructions given to them leave them so little time to do something that it is a marvel that they get anything out—and on other occasions, even worse than than, the instructions given to them are so vague as to make it really impossible for them to do the job that they would like to do.
That was Lord Haldane's view, that the Lord Chanellor, being freed of administrative duties, would be able to watch and be master over the whole quality of legislation.
But it seems clear that, if we were now to implement that principle adopted so frequently by the House during all these years of having specific ministerial responsibility for the quality of the law, additional ministerial manpower would be required. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor ought not to be invited to take on any more burdens. In 1971 Lord Dilhorne expressed the view that the burdens on the Lord Chancellor were already as much as any one man could bear. Far from being relieved of any duties, as Lord Haldane had suggested, the Lord Chancellor has been given greatly increased duties in administering the new organisation of the courts following the Beeching recommendations.
I take serious note, of course, of what the Committee says in this connection and of the correspondence with the Prime Minister, and I should like to consider that further, but, with respect, it seems to me implicit in the Committee's recommendation, which would seek to bring in the Statute Law Committee, so to speak, to devil for the Lord Chancellor, that the Lord Chancellor would not be expected to be personally responsible to the extent that he would in fact himself look at all our statutes and express a personal view.

Sir David Renton: It may help if I try to clarify this matter. What we had in mind was that there should be a member of the Cabinet with overall responsibility for the form, structure and drafting of statutes—to use my hon. and learned Friend's phrase, for the quality of legislation. For reasons which I cannot elaborate in an intervention, we felt that the Lord Chancellor would be the most suitable member of the Cabinet to do that work. I

say "We", but I should add that that was the view of all but two members of our Committee. There were two who did not agree with the rest of us.
Obviously, whenever any Minister is given any responsibility, he has the backing of his Department to help him. Sometimes, he has the backing of an advisory committee of people outside the Department, and so on. We felt that the Lord Chancellor, with the backing of the Statute Law Committee, could best carry this responsibility as a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Percival: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I hope that he will in this debate take the opportunity to enlarge on that and some other aspects of the recommendations which we have been discussing. However, my view is that if this new ministerial responsibility is to be effective it must be implemented in a way which imposes a direct personal obligation on the Minister responsible. It may for that reason mean that he cannot be a Cabinet Minister, but in my view it is essential that it be a responsibility carried out in a very personal way by someone who has to come to the Dispatch Box and be questioned about any piece of legislation the quality of which is less than one would desire.
It was for that reason that the committee of which I spoke earlier came to the conclusion that the Lord Chancellor already had so much to do that he could not take on that duty. We considered whether it might be carried out by the Law Officers, for it seemed to us to be very much in the spirit of the general duty of the Law Officers, going beyond their duties as members of the Government, to advise the House on what the House is doing.
It seems very much in line with that duty that a Law Officer should say to the Government, "No, you should not do that. The quality of this is really too bad". It is also in line with the duty which the Law Officers accept as being part of their general functions, of looking after the liberty of the subject, since there is nothing more oppressive to the liberty of the subject than either too much legislation or legislation of poor quality. We felt, therefore, that it was very much in accord with the spirit in


which we understand the Law Officers to be not just Ministers of the Crown but servants of the House and of the people as a whole, that they should carry this responsibility.
However, we thought that with just two English Law Officers, it would be impossible to burden them with any more work, for we thought it was remarkable how they managed to do all they have to do at present. Therefore, if our suggestion were adopted it would seem to necessitate an increase in manpower, and this we accepted and advocated. Once we used to have six Law Officers; they included the Queen's Advocate. One way would be to revive or fill that post and allocate these duties to that officer. Alternatively, the Attorney-General could use the Queen's Advocate for more general legal duties and take on these other obligations himself. There are also other suggestions in the Report about how this problem could be tackled.
The fundamental point remains that the performance of these duties should be allocated to a senior Minister who should have a personal and direct responsibility to this House for seeing that the quality of what we turn out is improved. This was important in 1856. It was even more important in 1956. I have been here since 1959 and I know that many hon. Members have been stressing it continuosly since then.
It could be so exciting. There are so many things we ought to be trying, such as having small committees of professional men looking at the drafts of legislation and commenting on them not on the policy content but simply on the meaning of the words used. This could be something like the German pre-presentation and vetting by experts. Most legislatures have the same problem. We should try some of the things they do, and above all we must make it somebody's job to improve the quality of legislation and stand at that Box to answer for any failure to do so. Only then will we get someone whose job it is to try some of these experiments. It is now even more important than ever, because if we are to take advantage of the work of this Committee—and we shall bear a very heavy responsibility if we do not—the Government must now appoint a Minister with direct and personal responsibility for

doing what everything in this Report is directed towards—improving at long last the quality of the legislation we pass—and for giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) on this excellent Report. It would have been so easy to produce a report which was unreadable on legislation which is unintelligible. The highest compliment I can pay to the Report is to say that on the many nights recently when we have been sitting into the early hours, the Report has proved sufficiently arresting to command my attention for up to half an hour before I went to sleep.
The Report might be named the Renton Report. It is not, as is printed on the cover, a Report on the preparation of legislation. That is something very much wider. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) had conducted the researches in his chambers at even greater length, he would have found that the volume of delegated legislation passed in the years he mentioned was even greater than the volume of statute law. This is sometimes overlooked.
If one moves on from the cover to the terms of reference inside, one finds something which is much more restricted, which covers less than half the legislation passed each year. It says
I hereby appoint"—
and then it gives the list of members of the Committee—
to be a Committee on the Preparation of Legislation with the following terms of reference: 'With a view to achieving greater simplicity and clarity in statute law,"—
and
'to review the form in which public bills are drafted'".
My first observation therefore is that the Report covers less than half the legislation inflicted upon this country each year. Moreover, it covers that less than half which at least Parliament has power to amend. Bills which are defective when introduced can at least be amended by this House in Committee or on Report, but more than half of the legislation inflicted by this House is delegated legislation, and Parliament has no power to amend a single word of that.
Some might think there was an even more pressing need to inquire into the preparation of legislation which is beyond the power of this House to amend. I say that in the belief that I am the only Member of this House in the last half century to have attempted twice to introduce Bills to give the House of Commons power under certain restricted circumstances to amend delegated legislation. Alas, neither of these Bills reached the statute book.
It is dangerous to have legislation which cannot be debated. I mention that, and with a caveat. Those who are not inclined to read reports but to read only the summary of recommendations and conclusions at the end can fall into traps. I recognise the need for a last-minute corrective process, and if we read Recommendation (106) merely in the summary of recommendations and conclusions, few will dissent from it. However, the paragraphs from which it emanates propose that this remedy should be applied without debate.
The proposed amendments would be printed on the Order Paper with the requisite certificate, and Parliament would be given the opportunity to accept or reject them, taken together and not individually, without debate.
What is the purpose of giving Parliament power to assent to or negative a resolution without giving power to those who are opposed to that assent to state the reason for their opposition?
It might be said that this recommendation was intended to deal with very urgent matters and that it was not desired to consume the time of the House on such matters. There are precedents for dealing with this. If any one Member of this House objects to the proposition contained in a motion to introduce a Ten-Minute Rule Bill, he may state to the House the reasons for opposing that motion. If there are stronger reasons than are apparent to me why no debate should be allowed pursuant to Recommendation No. (106), I hope at least that we shall take the analogy of the Ten-Minute Rule Bill and allow one Member of the House to express, on behalf of himself and others who might agree with him, his reason for thinking that the sponsor's motion should not be accepted by the House, otherwise the consent of the

House is without debate. I think it could be said that without exception such motions would be carried. That illustrates also the importance of reading the Report itself rather than just the summary of conclusions at the end.
Reading this Report in conjunction with the Kilbrandon Report, I feel that it appears to confine its considerations of the territorial applicability of legislation to questions differentiating between legislation for England, or for the United Kingdom, or for Scotland, or possibly for the United Kingdom and Ireland.
I mention en passant that there is another class of legislation to which attention is drawn in Part XI of the Kilbrandon Report on the Constitution. That is legislation which applies to the islands which are not part of the United Kingdom. I refer to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which, though not part of the United Kingdom, are legislated for by this Parliament often without intent, without realising that it has happened, and in a manner which is in breach of the 1957 undertaking given by the Government of the day. I make this point, again not in criticism of the Renton Report but to draw to the attention of those who may seek to implement it that certain matters have not been stated quite as fully as unlimited time would have permitted.
I think that Recommendation No. (57) is a most admirable one—
The practice should be developed of making available for Committee stage debates in both Houses notes on clauses and similar additional explanatory material.
This will, I think, ring a very loud bell in the ears of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), because this very matter came up within the last few days on the Report stage of the Community Land Bill.
I should be most grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire would tell us when he speaks—I am sure that we are all looking forward to hearing him—whether his Committee meant to confine to the Committee stage the recommendation that the explanatory memorandum should be provided, and whether the Committee had reasons for its not being available to the House as a whole on Report.

Sir David Renton: I think that it was felt that, if these memoranda were provided for the Committee stage, they would serve a useful purpose, but that, by the time the Committee stage was passed, much of the material in the memoranda would have been overtaken by amendments accepted or to be accepted by the Government, that they would have to be completely rewritten for the Report stage, and that the effort would not be worth while. It would be a very great effort.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, but I suspect that if his Committee had sat after the passage of the Community Land Bill it might have come to a different conclusion. It would have been helpful if explanatory memoranda—rewritten, yes, because the amendments were so substantial—had been available to the House for the Report stage of that Bill.
That is merely one example. If the amendments on Report were not substantial the work involved in preparing explanatory memoranda just for the Government amendments would not be great. But if the Government amendments for Report were considerable, in equal measure would there be a need for explanatory memoranda on them.
Recommendation No. (50) states:
Where powers are conferred to amend Acts by Order in Council in order to facilitate consolidation, the exercise of the powers should be made subject to affirmative resolution, and no such resolution should be taken in the Commons until the relevant order had been reported by the Joint Committe on Statutory Instruments.
Maybe, but it does not lie within the power of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to comment on merit. Its function is to comment on whether the proposals are ultra vires or intra vires.
I mention that because in the past two weeks I was present at a meeting where a Minister of the Crown, addressing fishermen in Devon on the new survey regulations, stated that they had been unanimously approved by an all-party Committee of the House. When I challenged him, he admitted that it was the Statutory Instruments Committee, and that it had no power to comment on the merit of the regulations.
I am not happy that a body outside this House, however eminent, should have power to legislate, even for consolidation, through such a procedure that the House has no power of amendment. I return again to my plea that we need to reintroduce a procedure, even if it should be tightly bounded, whereby the House can amend statutory instruments. Otherwise, if we increase the scope of delegated legislation we increase still further the danger of unforeseen consequences and of slipshod, incompetent or unskilled drafting, simply because it does not have ahead of it the test of amendment to sharpen the wits of the draftsmen.
I know that it is always denied—it was denied before the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation—but I have at the back of my mind the conviction that a draftsman will be much more careful if he knows that that which he drafts must be justified line by line, clause by clause, before a Standing Committee, and perhaps amended by the House, both in Committee and on Report, than if he knows that the Minister can come to the Box with crocodile tears streaming down his cheeks and say "It is not within my power to amend. The statutory instrument must be accepted or rejected in toto by the House. If you throw out the bath water, you throw out the baby with it." In 15 years I have heard that plea by Ministers of both parties for shoddily drafted statutory instruments.
If we give to Ministers or outside bodies, however commendable in themselves, more power to circumvent the normal processes of legislation, which include the gauntlet of amendment, we do so at the risk of all the perils identified by the Renton Committee for legislation which is the minority of legislation which passes through this House and reaches statute form eventually.
We do not at present—and the Renton Committee was right to say that we should not in future—give judicial effect to side notes in Bills or to statements made by Ministers at the Dispatch Box during our proceedings which purport to inform Members and presumably the public at large as to what a Bill means. Often we have had such statements from Ministers. As the courts rightly observe, it is for them to interpret the law, not


Ministers. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend's Committee did not fall into that enticing trap of recommending that explanatory statements made by Ministers in the House should be subject to judicial notice in interpreting legislation. That would be dangerous, all the more so because it is so alluring since the hypothesis could be made that, as the House legislated on the basis of the Minister's assurance, surely that is what the judges should enforce. The judges would then need to know what was in the Minister's mind at the time and what advice the Minister had been given about disaffection in his own majority.
I have endeavoured to confine myself to what is in the Report. When, many years ahead I hope, my right hon. and learned Friend retires from this House, this Report will be one of his lasting memorials. It will be referred to in places of learning, in universities as well as in this House. I hope that it will not be the sort of memorial that becomes completely obscured with ivy—the fate of many memorials. Rather I hope that it will act as a fertiliser.
I echo the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) who said that we were being swamped with legislation. Several Labour Members who should have known better referred to this House as a legislature. That is merely one of its functions. It has become the overwhelming and all-consuming function. But it is not what it is supposed to be. Among other things it is supposed to be a deliberative assembly. We are having little enough time to deliberate.
This debate, in half a parliamentary day, may, whatever we would desire, be the last occasion when this valuable Report will be subject to proper debate and scrutiny. It may be that a Government programme of legislation will once more descend upon us, a programme of such intensity, complexity and duration that with the best will in the world most of the recommendations contained in this Report will pass into history, not because anyone wishes them ill but because no majority wishes them sufficiently well to see them carried out. My right hon. and learned Friend and his Committee deserve a better fate than that.

9.48 p.m.

Mr, J. M. Craigen: I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in that this is an extremely important subject. I share his pessimism that little may emerge from this evening's deliberations. It seemed earlier that the debate was made up largely of lawyers speaking to lawyers. As a layman I believe it important to emphasise that this subject deals with the tools we use to perform one of our important jobs. Much has been said about the volume of legislation passing through this House and the other place. The fact is that modern life demands more and more legislation. Parliaments have done no more and no less than respond to the demands of the people who elect Members of Parliament.
One of the problems is that Members of Parliament increasingly face the difficulties of operating in a situation which has grown up, probably unnoticed, over a long period, but one which now demands all their skills as territorial representatives and all their energies and expertise as professionals on a wide variety of subjects. Members of Parliament will appreciate what I am talking about. I refer to the volume of legislation on a wide variety of subjects, which demands close study if a proper job is to be done. As a result of the limitations on time for debate and on the time of Members of Parliament it is becoming increasingly difficult to do justice to much of this legislation.
This Report is thorough enough, though it deals with legislation in the existing framework. The hon. Member for Tiverton mentioned devolution when he referred to the Kilbrandon Report. There is uncertainty about the future framework in which we shall deal with the laws of Scotland, England, Wales and the United Kingdom. The Lord Advocate may well comment on some of the points made in paragraphs 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5 of the Renton Report. Although some functions may be transferred to a Scottish Assembly, many items will still require special attention because of the differences between the Scottish and English legal systems. I noted with some concern the point made in the Report about legislation in British Departments in the paragraphs to which I referred.
It is surprising that there are no representatives present from the Scottish National Party as I should have thought that they would be taking a far greater interest in this matter.
If there is uncertainty about the future legislative processes following the devolution arrangements, there is also uncertainty about the future framework of our parliamentary processes. Many Bills have been well cut and dried before reaching the Vote Office as a result of the considerable amount of discussion between Whitehall and the interested groups concerned, whether it be the TUC, the CBI or the various pressure groups now knocking at the doors of Parliament asking for legislation.
One of the major problems involved in the preparation of legislation is the speed with which events move in our society. Perhaps this means that Parliament should be more concerned with the basic principles of the Bill rather than with the detailed intricacies. Circumstances change so quickly today that we can get so caught up in the trivia that we lose sight of the main objectives of a piece of legislation.
I readily confess that this leaves us with the basic problem of who interprets all these intricacies once Parliament has decided the objectives. It might be the lawyers, it might be the civil servants. An aggrieved constituent might still feel it necessary to come back to Parliament to point out an anomaly which has arisen because of the interpretation of the Civil Service or the legal profession.
Part of the problem is that we are in a period of vacuum. We are not clear how the problems concerning the institutional side of our parliamentary affairs will be resolved.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): My hon. Friend mentioned certain paragraphs in the Report dealing with some of the problems of Anglo-Scottish legislation—that is, legislation that applies both to Scotland and England—and he mentioned devolution in that connection. In my judgment, devolution may contribute to the solution of some of the problems dealt with by the Renton Committee, but it would be wrong to suggest that it may be the complete answer to the difficult problems raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Craigen: I was not suggesting that it would be a complete answer. In mentioning those paragraphs in the Renton Committee's Report I was concerned that even in dealing with legislation which applied to Great Britain, problems of draftsmanship and the availability of professional assistance sometimes arose which were not always helpful to the Scottish dimension. We may not, I think, be able to do justice to this thorough Report because of the uncertainties of devolution but more particularly because of the uncertainties over the operation of the parliamentary system itself.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I rise with certain trepidation as one of the few hon. Members present who is neither tested by time in Parliament nor a learned or unlearned lawyer. I join my hon. and right hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his Committee on their Report, which is excellent both in content and in form. Form is an important aspect. In debating the process of law making, form is crucial, because it is through correct form that law will become effective in its application.
I was a little concerned at the outset about what my unlearned ear interpreted as a somewhat superficial interjection by the Solicitor-General. I do not profess to be competent to judge the reference made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to the need for scrubbers and scrapers. I shall dwell on one theme only which runs through the whole Report, that is, the theme of time. So many of the recommendations of the Report are drawn from the fact that time is of the essence, and this is one element which is inelastic.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to the Preparation of Legislation may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Rathbone: As I was saying, running throughout the Report seems to be the essential quality of time, which is inelastic in all our lives. Time is of the


essence in the grey areas where drafting instruments are given and where directions are established for turning policy into the draft Bill. The Report refers to the fact that time often inhibits the correct or best drafting of these Bills. Time is obviously of the essence in working out and then reviewing the considerable detail in Bills and the Report makes suggestions for relieving the law of some of these details.
I believe that the First Parliamentary Counsel, in his evidence, struck it right. Time is of the essence in ensuring the best understanding of the law in applying to it the correct syntax, sentencing, paragraphing, titling and other details. Time is of the essence in the provision of sufficient and coherent explanatory detail which I, as a layman, more than welcome.
Lastly, I believe that time is of the essence to ensure simplicity and clarity in drafting for the best consideration in this House, which it is presumably in the interests of the Government to have because it means that that discussion and consideration can be got through more quickly, and also to ensure simplicity and clarity for my hon. and learned Friends and others in applying the law.
The Report has a myriad technical recommendations on which I do not pretend to be competent to touch. But two particularly caught my eye, and I want to make two or three comments which have not yet been made in the debate. I believe that the most excellent and most crucial recommendation is on the need to recruit sufficient suitable parliamentary draftsmen. Not only will this lead to better and speedier drafting for the Government but, as the Report mentions, it will lead to more generous drafting support for Private Members' Bills, an essential component of this House.
I believe that the most intriguing recommendation is the extension of computerisation, the speed in printing of draft Bills and the speed in printing, presumably, amendments to those Bills, which are so often late and available only at the last minute for our consideration before we debate them.
Surely crucial to the proper effect of all these recommendations is that this and future Governments have to be aware of

the need to lessen the legislative load. The Report points out that there are about 50 days in the Session for Government Bills and that in this Session alone we have had 79 Bills. I am not making a party political point but it is crucially important to the consideration of legislation in this Parliament that such a situation should not continue.
The Prime Minister himself touched on this point when, in a letter, he told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire:
…I would not wish in any way to weaken or appear to weaken the responsibility of parliamentary counsel to departmental ministers for the drafting of a public Bill and the minister's own responsibility to Parliament for the legislation which he introduces.
There is in turn a responsibility of Parliament to the country, the ultimate user of the legislation, which we have to remember.
With temerity, I would offer one suggestion which, if the Committee's terms of reference had been wider, it might have considered. That is, how all this fits in with the question of a Bill of Rights. Whether that is a Magna Carta or a Declaration of Rights or, as in the European Community, a Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, I am not particularly qualified to comment. With a Bill of Rights in existence, the quality of legislation and perhaps the delegated legislation as well, could be tested against a touchstone. Perhaps it might also lead to statements of general principle and facilitate the movement in that direction as recommended by the Committee, without jeopardising the rights of individuals or increasing the difficulties of legal interpretation.
Wherever we get to in improving our preparation, interpretation and application of legislation, we shall get further more quickly if we heed this important, vitally positive anud constructive Report.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: From the days of Justinian, if not from the days of Caius, and in every legal system, ignorance of the law has excused no one. But such has been the failure of modern Parliaments to enact clear law that today everyone might be excused for being ignorant of the law.
It is customary in these circumstances, when we ruefully recognise this fact, to turn first upon the draftsmen when we are confronted with the incomprehensible or even, sometimes the unreadable. But the principal fault in recent times has lain not with the draftsmen but with Ministers of both parties who have insisted upon overloading the legislative system so that it can no longer properly perform its function.
The primary responsibility lies in the fact that no Minister is personally responsible for the quality of legislation. If there were such a Minister, the statute book would look very different. To begin with, it would look much slimmer. The primary cause of the statutory monstrosities that Parliament from time to time spawns—particularly Finance Acts—is Ministers' determination to plug on with legislation even though the parliamentary time table will not permit it to be properly considered. In consequence, it is not even properly prepared.
This has meant that diligent and experienced solicitors have to confess to their clients that they do not know what the law is, that they have not had time to catch up with changes. I am speaking not of arcane and exotic mysteries but of the ordinary everyday matters affecting the farm, the family and firm that form the substance of inquiries by solicitors' clients. If there were a Minister responsible for the preparation of statutes, they would be far easier to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said that part of the trouble lay in the matter of timing. Ministers in charge of Departments with a heavy—as they see it—departmental programme of legislation before them, do not have the time to give their minds to the quality of the legislation that they are bringing forward. If there were a Minister with the time and the specific responsibility to do just that, we would have many more examples of legislation that followed the shining example of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, which is a model of clarity and ordinary language. Many Members will recall the splendid example that appears in Section 2(3) of that Act which, seeking to define "common duty of care" says:
…so that (for example) in proper cases an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults….

What could be more refreshingly simple and clear than that? It is no coincidence that there have been only two cases taken to appeal on the interpretation of that Act.
At present in Standing Committee it is customary for a Minister, when confronted with complaints about the complexity of legislation, to blame the lawyers and to say, "You know what lawyers are. I am simply the Minister responsible for the Nationalisation of Bookmakers Bill." But a responsible Minister would have to acknowledge that they were his lawyers and that the thicket represented by legislation was his thicket. He would have to justify its, and his, continued existence. If I may adopt a parenthesis, which is the device used by many draftsmen, I wish to observe that lawyers comprise one-ninth of the total of hon. Members of this House, yet at this moment they comprise 75 per cent. of those present in the Chamber. Those who are not lawyers seem to be missing an opportunity tonight.
With simpler and more comprehensible legislation, the saving in time, in solicitors' fees, in counsel's fees for consultation, in the costs incurred in obtaining the interpretation of the judges, would be enormous. But these are the benefits that would accrue only after legislation has been enacted. If the current chronic legislative diarrhoea can be staunched, a more important benefit will be gained here in this House. We would understand the full legislative consequences of what we are enacting. At present that is not the case, even if we are members of a Standing Committee charged with the detailed consideration of a Bill, because there is just not enough time to get on top of the task.
I attach the highest importance to the Committee's recommendation in Chapter 18·34 calling for greater time to be allowed to elapse between the successive stages of the passage of a Bill through tie House. The Report stage of a Bill is one at which the whole House is supposed to receive, and to be able to consider properly, the report of what is merely its Committee. At present, the Report stage is merely an opportunity of which only the weary contestants who were members of the Committee are left to take advantage—and then only to rehearse their former arguments.
There is not enough time between Committee and Report for those coming fresh to the argument to master anything approaching the detail. This does not occur wholly by accident. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke rightly of the reservoir of experience and talent in this House, but I believe that Ministers fear that if it were tapped the carefully balanced compromises arrived at outside the House and the nicely-calculated stages of their timetable would be swept away. The conflict between a Government's purpose and the proper functioning of this Chamber is a long-lasting one, and at present it seems that it is nearly always resolved in favour of the Government. The recommendations in Chapter 18 of the Report would redress that.
Less legislation; a Minister responsible for its preparation; greater intervals between its stages in Parliament; and simplicity and clarity of language—these are beacons which shine forth from this Report, to which I should like to add my respectful tribute to those which have already been heaped upon it. These beacons have been shining for five months now, since the Report was published. Because they call for a major change in governmental practice we are entitled to expect an expression of governmental reaction and intention. All that we have had is a polite noise from the Solicitor-General. We are about to have another polite noise—no doubt the same one—from the Lord Advocate. But where is the Lord President, who is responsible for bringing legislation forward in this House? In so far as the Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for legislation and for the quality of the legislation, where is the Prime Minister to come in? Why do we have only a Law Officer to open and conclude this debate, pleased though we always are to see both of them?
I hope that the Government will realise that this rather offhand reception of a Report which is both a beacon and a landmark simply will not do, and that what is now required is evidence that the Government are prepared to take action on the recommendations of that Report.

The Solicitor-General: Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat, may I ask him whether he is complaining that the

Government have not made up their minds in advance of the debate?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes. I am complaining that the Government have not come forward with an assurance that they propose to take action upon many of the recommendations of the report which are self-evident in their desirability and rightness.

10.17 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I rise only briefly to thank the House for the welcome that it has given to this Report. Although in accordance with custom the Report bears the name of the Committee's chairman, I assure the House that this was a genuine team effort on the part of a very good team. Perhaps I can betray the secret that each member of the Committee, reading the Report, would be able to identify his own thoughts and phrases which he or she contributed.
Except for two fairly minor matters, I am glad to say that we were unanimous in our conclusions and recommendations, and that perhaps strengthens the Report. It is a relief to me and, I am sure, to the rest of the Committee that our Report has been so widely welcomed in the House, because some of our recommendations mean, as I think hon. Members accept that they mean, that the House would have to abandon some of its cherished habitual practices.
I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for his welcome. However rapidly it was given, I am sure that it was sincere. It offered the hope that the Government would give our proposals a fair wind if the House did so. The House has given the proposals a fair wind, so now it is up to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), speaking as Shadow Leader of the House, not only welcomed the more important of our proposals but did so in a superbly thoughtful speech.
I realise that the Government will wish to consider our proposals and have time to consider them in the light of the discussion tonight. However, I should like to ask the Solicitor-General, or whoever is replying to the debate, when we are likely to be told the Government's decisions. Will he bear in mind that some slight changes in Standing Orders will have to be submitted to and approved by the House? The Solicitor-General mentioned


one which would be required under paragraph 10.13, in which we make a rather important recommendation—perhaps the most important. Meanwhile, will the Solicitor-General say to whom Questions should be addressed in the House about the form and drafting of Bills in general and about the implementation of our proposals? In the light of the Prime Minister's reply to my letter on the matters outside our terms of reference, presumably it will be the Prime Minister himself who will have the responsibility of answering, but the House would like to know. The position should be made clear.
I am sure that the members of my Committee would wish me to thank First Parliamentary Counsel, Sir Anthony Stainton, for the help which he gave us. He was wonderfully forthcoming in telling us exactly how his office works and in all the information he gave. Needless to say, he had to be very clear about the stresses to which he and his learned colleagues are subject. He was admirably open minded in the matters that we discussed with him and on which we asked his opinions.
In conclusion, if our laws are, as we find and as has been said again tonight, incomprehensible and chaotic, it brings the law into disrespect, and that brings Parliament into disrespect. We should take pride in the quality of our work as legislators, but it is clear that a vast amount of our work gives us no cause whatever for pride. Badly written laws are a disservice to the people themselves, because it causes them to suffer injustice, inconvenience and expense. It may sometimes also defeat the object of Parliament and lead to disorder and to flagrant violation of the laws.
We have to improve the quality of our legislation, otherwise we weaken our parliamentary democracy. Our Committee's principal aim was to try to strengthen parliamentary democracy by suggesting to Parliament and the Government these many ways of improving our laws.
I am deeply grateful for what has been said in this debate. Let us hope that it will lead to further steps forward in improving the quality of our legislation.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is a great honour to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and I hope that no words of mine will dim the brightness of his words or dull the lustre of his message.
The words
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
come readily to mind in this debate. It is a salutary reflection on the Trojan labours of the Renton Committee from 1973 to 1975 that this House should have said that this was a matter of urgency in 1856, but it is an even greater cause for regret when one recalls that one of our Kings said
I would wish that…the superfluous and tedious statutes were brought into one sum together,—and made more plain and short to the intent that men might better understand them;—which thing shall most help to advance the health of the Commonwealth.
That was said by Edward VI in 1550.
I, too, welcome this diligent and eminently readable Report because it brings several blasts of good sound common sense to the confused incomprehensible, gargantuan, turgid and seething mass of our statute book. There are three basic problems. The first is that we in Parliament who make the law must be given the time to make it properly, must be given the opportunity to discuss it, to analyse it and to see it tested against expert opinion, and on all of these the purpose of many of the recommendations of the Renton Committee dwells. But—I am merely repeating a theme that has been repeated time and again throughout the debate—the best way in which we can be provided with the time is for us to make much less legislation.
The second problem is that those who have to administer the law must be able to administer it speedily. That means that they must be able to find it and to understand it. That means that computers must be more widely used, that amendments should be more sensibly introduced, and that consolidation must be accelerated with more parliamentary draftsmen. All of these are recommendations of the Renton Committee. It also means that the administrators of the law should have less law to plough through.
The third problem is that the people who are governed by die law must be able to understand it, for only from understanding can come respect, and from respect can come the voluntary submission to the rule of law without which our system of parliamentary democracy would be but a sad illusion.
To this problem also the remedy is at least partly a reduction in the volume of legislation. But when the miracle occurs and these three problems are solved, and the wand of the good Renton fairy touches the turgid, seething mass of our statute book and puts most of it to rights will the transference then be permanent?
On this the Renton Report makes a strange recommendation. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), with his usual wit and charm, has observed, the proposal for breathing new life into the Statute Law Committee may be more difficult than is allowed. To quote the opinion of one of our most distinguished former parliamentary draftsmen, Mr. Francis Bennion,
They"—
the Committee—
prefer to load further duties on the Statute Law Committee, an august body that meets once a year and consists of people whose job it is to do something else. The Statute Law Committee have been responsible for our statute law for over 100 years. They are therefore responsible for the deplorable stale it is in. To load further duties on a body that has so emphatically demonstrated its incompetence is no sort of solution.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen will not read into that any personal criticism of the no doubt vital function which he and that Committee performs. Mr. Bennion's own recommendation is for a new Statute

Law Commission which would, as he says,
consolidate sets of statutes dealing with one subject into single Acts, compile indexes, supervise subordinate legislation and local Acts, provide a drafting service for Members of Parliament and set up a training scheme for draftsmen.
The Renton Committee rejects this solution, doubtless for good and thorough reasons, and, as a mere beginner in the field of legislation, I would not presume to judge between the opinions of the eminent and the most distinguished.
I make only this point. The continuing supervision of legislation in the future will indeed be a very great problem. It will be a problem that must be solved with farsightedness and good sense. We must consider at least the possibility, as the Renton Committee could not do by its terms of reference, of a Law Officer whose sole responsibility should be the continuing supervision of the statute book, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has said.
The pre-eminent feature of such a Minister would be that he would be subject to the relentless activating criticism and questioning of this House. Only if such a one were to come into our midst would we stand a reasonable chance of getting some action upon these proposals which the Government are so fairly considering.
If we do not watch beyond the day of the miracle touch of the Renton wand, we shall still be debating the reform of the statute book in 2075, and yet again an hon. Member, perhaps the then hon. Member for Burton, will have to rise to his feet and say:
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: As there is still some time left to this debate, may I intervene by way of repetition, although not tedious repetition, by congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and his Committee on this Report which has been given to us to debate.
The main theme of the debate has obviously been that we should try to make our legislation more simple and clear, and therefore that we should legislate on principle and purpose rather than in detail. If we are to do that, if that is the intention and the House accepts that legislation shall in future be brief and in principle, we must get the balance right between certainty and clarity. Otherwise, if we sacrifice certainty, we shall either give great power of interpretation to the courts or give great power of subordinate legislation to Ministers.
As regards the courts, it would be very nice if we could adopt principles of the sort followed by the great common law judges in their judgments, laying down principles as precedents and saying "This is the principle of the law: let the courts further interpret it". That might be right, but what I fear as an outcome from it is that, if we go too far without having the balance right, we shall merely transfer the debate on the law elsewhere, transferring legislation from this House to litigation in the courts. We shall be asking the citizen to decide the law at his expense in the courts instead of protecting him against doubt as to the law. I recognise that it has been said many times in the debate that our effort to make the law more certain has in many cases made it more uncertain, and that is why I say that we must try to achieve the right balance.
I come next to what I mean when I say that by legislating in broad principle, using the broad brush, we may well give Ministers and the executive too great power and freedom to legislate. I can illustrate the point by using the example which has already been used—the Community Land Bill. There was an effort in the drafting of that Bill to legislate in principle. Naturally, the Opposition, myself included, objected strongly, insisting on knowing what the legislation would

be. We wanted to know in the Bill itself what it would be. We were told that the Minister wanted to be flexible, that he wanted to legislate by statutory instrument for the details of the scheme. But, as all Oppositions will, we tried to insist that every detail of it should be put in the Bill.
It may well be, therefore, that if we try to legislate in broad principle, we shall only succeed in pushing the legislation further down the scale into subordinate legislation. Unfortunately, my right hon. and learned Friend's Committee did not have an opportunity to look at the statutory instruments procedure.

Sir David Renton: I think that my right hon. Friend may be overlooking yet another possibility—he has not mentioned it yet—which is recommended in paragraph 10.13 of our Report, that we should have the statements of principle in the clauses, when they have to be set out, and where detailed guidance or matters have to be spelled out, have that in the schedules. We felt that that would make for greater clarity without sacrificing the certainty which my right hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Page: I had not overlooked that. But I think that what will normally happen is that it will not be put in the schedules but be left to subordinate legislation. The Minister will be given powers to legislate by order. Unless we improve our procedure for examining subordinate legislation, I fear that we may fall into a trap.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be careful lest his intelligent and sensible words offer opportunities to those less well intentioned, to wicked men quite different from himself. I hope that he will make clear that nothing he is now saying should be taken as conveying for a moment that the first edition of the Community Land Bill was in any way clear.

Mr. Page: Certainly not. What I said was that there had been an effort to legislate in principle rather than in detail. I did not say the effort was successful.
If it is true that we must leave much more of our legislation to statutory instruments in order to achieve a broad brush in our statute law, there should be an


examination of the proposed instruments in the Standing Committee considering the Bill. The instruments which a Minister proposes to make have frequently already been drafted while the Bill is going through the House. The Standing Committee should be kept in existence for, say, six months after a Bill has become law in order to consider any statutory instruments brought into operation. This would relieve our statute law of a great amount of detail.
Why does every Bill have to die upon Prorogation? In the past few weeks, we have seen Bills rushed through just because they must be passed before Prorogation. Surely we can change our Standing Orders so that we can spread out our consideration of Bills.
The appointment of more parliamentary draftsmen to assist in the consolidation of our laws is one of the most advantageous acts any Government could perform. Consolidation is not exciting work. For several years, I took part in late night debates on consolidation Bills—in which it is very difficult to keep in order—and there was usually only a Minister and myself in the Chamber. I always thought it dull work, but one night someone leapt to his feet in the Public Gallery and shouted, "You bastard.". I apologise for the unparliamentary language. He jumped over the rail and a body came hurtling down on to the Floor of the House. I thought at the time that if I could raise that sort of emotion on a subject like consolidation, what could I do on something else?

10.38 p.m.

Sir Michael Havers: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and offer my person admiration on what is a remarkable Report, not least for its clarity. I regret the low attendance for a debate which is of importance to every hon. Member. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) said, the results of what we do in legislation are either to our credit or to our shame. It is to be regretted that we have such a small turnout and that so few laymen have spoken. Those who say the lawyers have swamped it because they have hogged it should know that there has been no non-lawyer who has sought

to catch Mr. Speaker's eye who has not been called.

Mr. George: I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member should listen to what my hon. and learned Friend says.

Sir M. Havers: I thought that I had made my point clear. I am sorry that I was not speaking in a lecturer's tone.
It is sad that there is only one Government back bencher present for the wind-up speeches. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), in the course of the lecture he delivered, appeared to have no time for the Report until he was called to order by the Chair. He seems to have developed an antipathy for the judiciary. As I am sure the Solicitor-General will confirm, the hon. Member's phrase about the Government dominating legislation and, in some aspects, having a great influence over the judiciary is totally wrong and absolutely false.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) spoke, as have so many hon. Members, of overloading the machine, and he pointed to something I had not thought of before which is clearly right—the use of the statute book on occasions for propaganda purposes. That is something over which every hon. Member should keep a close eye with a Government of any complexion.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke fondly of the Statute Law Committee—more fondly than did my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) who referred to it in terms which make me as a very new member, who has not attended a meeting, slightly worried about what will happen when I get there.
The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) made a clear and valuable contribution to the debate and spoke of the need for the law to be in language the layman could understand, a plea which was echoed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The hon. and learned Member should have paid great attention to my hon. and learned Friend. However hard one tried with the Finance Bill it would be quite impossible to put it into language which the layman could understand, not only in respect of the clarity


of the language but in respect of the Government's intention in seeking to close loopholes left by earlier Acts.
The hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that there was too much legislation in too short a time, that this imposed a heavy burden on draftsmen, that there were unsatisfactory draftsmen, and that Bills prepared by the Opposition should have the benefit of expert advice. He said that he was a strong believer in gradualism, and I hope that tomorrow he will be waiting on the Prime Minister's doorstep to tell him as strongly as he told us about this matter. The hon. and learned Member made a useful contribution to the debate, particularly in his warning of the danger of the Government treating the debate more as an academic exercise than as an intention to act upon it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal said that taxing statutes should be consolidated in one measure. I wonder how many pages such a measure would fill, and what the task of drafting that measure would be. I believe that it could be done, and I suspect that a great deal of pruning could take place in the process of putting it all into one volume. That would be a solution of immense value to all those who have to advise on tax matters. My hon. and learned Friend made the very good point that one must look deeper, that the Renton Committee had not been allowed to look at the pre-legislative process, and spoke of the obsession with secrecy.
It has been suggested by a number of people, including one or two right hon. and hon. Members, that we should give consideration to the publication of draft Bills for comment before Bills are finally published. There may be something to be said for this. It might get round the problem that the Renton Committee considered—and then dismissed—about a sort of First Reading debate.
The obsession with secrecy is curious, because it applies to Members of this House, not to the bodies whom the Government are always prepared to consult and to whom they tell what is in a proposed Bill. They are given third and fourth prints sometimes of a Bill, while we know nothing about it except what comes by the back door and by way of whispers, rumours and Press leaks.
We could get away from this altogether if a draft Bill were published. There would be circumstances in which the action following a Bill would be such that it could not be published in advance, but many Bills do not have that drawback, and the draft could well be published in advance so that people could comment.
I sympathise and agree with the comment of my hon. and learned Friend about the determination of every Government always to cover every possible detail in a Bill. Mr. Justice Byrne, a great judge who had been senior Treasury counsel at the Old Bailey for years—one of the few holding that office to be made a High Court judge—always advised those preparing indictments, "Do not have an indictment containing 10, 12 or 20 counts. Do not go round looking for all the holes you can find to stop up. Make up your mind which crime or crimes the man has committed, and charge him with those. If he is convicted, you have done your job. If he is not, good luck to him."
With some of the indictments at the Old Bailey, and with some of the Bills going through this House, one can almost see people looking for every possible hole in order to stop it up. The result is that the legislation becomes completely top-heavy and far more complicated than it ever need be.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) spoke of a matter that he considered of great importance—and I agree with him—in No. (19) of the summary of recommendations: the convenience of the ultimate user. He spoke also of ministerial responsibility for the quality of legislation, and referred to the exchange of letters between my right hon. and learned Friend and the Prime Minister, in which the Prime Minister spoke of law Ministers still having the responsibility for the supervision of legislation.
I simply do not understand it. It may be that my successor, who will be winding up the debate, is in a luckier position than I was when I held his office. It is absolutely impossible for any Law Officer to look at legislation across the board, to look at every clause of every Bill. I doubt whether there is a single Member in the House tonight, lawyer or otherwise, who can put his hand on his heart and


say that he has examined with care anything like one in five of all the Bills that have gone through this House within the last 12 months—certainly not to look at every line of every clause. I do not believe that any Law Officer or pair of Law Officers would be able to do it.
Certainly they would look at matters which involved the liberty of the subject, at matters which might involve a degree of retrospection, or improper use of a power by a Minister, or a provision that appeared to be contrary to natural justice, but they would not be able to make recommendations as to brevity and clarity in every clause of every Bill to be considered by this House.
I will not say that the Prime Minister was being far from frank but I think he was a little over-optimistic about the influence exercised at the moment upon the general quality of legislation going through this House by what he calls—though I do not know of any such office in our present administration—the Law Ministers.
The House must be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who drew attention to the fact that delegated legislation is in bulk greater than statutes. Having become a member of the Committee concerned, which receives as much contempt as praise from the House, I have been sent recently the volumes dealing with statutory instruments for the last quarter of, I think, 1973. There are four volumes dealing with three months. It is true that, one, the bulkiest of all, is entirely taken up by various Customs and Excise regulations and orders.
If such regulations, which must be purchased at ever-increasing expense, are to achieve anything they must be mastered by somebody. We are imposing an intolerable burden upon all professional people who are expected to keep up with what is going on. Solicitors are now frank enough to tell their clients that they cannot keep up. That is not their fault but ours. We churn the stuff out at such a rate that it is impossible for any professional man such as a small country solicitor, who is not a specialist and who has to speak across the board and help people with all the various problems that

they have, to master it all. He perhaps has just one partner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) said that time was of the essence, and emphasised the need to have enough parliamentary counsel. He spoke of what I thought was the original proposal in the Report to use computers to make legislation more efficient. I am sure that it could be done. If the United States can put the whole of its law reports effectively into computers, as it apparently has done, we certainly should be able to put all our statutes into computers equally efficiently.
My. hon. Friend also spoke of the link between the debate and the increasing discussion about a Bill of Rights, saying that such a Bill would improve the quality of legislation. The Bill of Rights is a subject in which I have become increasingly interested. This is a spin-off that I had not considered, but I see the value for the quality of legislation.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells has told us that we do not understand the consequences of what we are doing. It is because we cannot master it. We cannot all see what is going on. The bulk of the legislation is so great that we cannot keep in line with it. My hon. and learned Friend and I came across an example a comparatively short time ago. After a Division, for which there had been a three-line Whip, I was about to leave when my hon. and learned Friend drew my attention to the fact that a Church measure was to follow. He had done what I had not, and what I suspect very few lawyers in the House had done. He had read it, and he had found in it provisions which stared out at anybody who looked at it as being, at least on the face of them, contrary to the principles of natural justice.
A number of my hon. and learned Friends who are present tonight stayed behind. We asked the Second Church Estates Commissioner to have the sense to take the measure back to the General Synod of the Church of England to reconsider it. He decided that he would not, and we then made certain that that measure did not go through.
The moral of that is that none of us, except my hon. and learned Friend, had seen the measure or read it with the care


that it deserved. I suspect that the Law Officers had not seen it either. I am certain that if they had the learned Solicitor-General would have taken the same view as I took.
There are a number of recommendations in the summary to which I pay particular attention. They are all important. The fact that I single out some of them does not mean that I consider them to be more important than others. They are the ones which especially attracted me. Advice on draft Bills being sought from specialists in the relevant branch of the law is one such example. I was particularly impressed by the suggestion that the Law Commission's drafting strength should be restored and further increased as soon as possible. There was also the recommendation to the effect that the use of statements of principle should be encouraged and that the statute should be arranged to suit the convenience of its ultimate user.
There were also criticisms of legislation by reference, which I have always found an unattractive way of working unless it can be absolutely clear. It is wrong that the users of what we produce should have to pick up one Act and start tracing backwards through the statutes to find out what we mean in 1975. I will not weary the House with the other matters. What we can say is that it is useless to have proposals of this sort unless the flood of new legislation is slowed down. There were 1,500 pages of it a year in the late 1960s and there are over 2,000 pages of it now, without taking into account statutory instruments. This flood not only erodes the quality of the legislation, but ultimately in many cases, I suspect, washes the quality completely away.
May I seek an assurance from the Solicitor-General—I know that it is one which he will be able to give us—that when the Government are considering these recommendations there will be no intention to increase legislation by enabling Bills and the use of statutory instruments? That is a process which is even more dangerous than our present system. I hope that the Government will show more enthusiasm than was shown during the course of the Solicitor-General's opening speech. It may well be that the speed at which the hon. and learned Gentleman went was not meant to

indicate any lack of enthusiasm. Unfortunately that was the impression I received.

10.57 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: This has been a good debate. I find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) that it deserved a better attendance. Certainly it offered an opportunity for some hon. Members to beat the Government. That must have been irresistible, and I do not complain about that. It was perhaps less than generous of certain Conservative Members to suggest that there was any lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Government over the Report. Quite what I could have done to emphasise our enthusiasm more than I did I find it difficult to understand.
Obviously I could have come here with the Government's mind already made up on all the important issues. We would have been criticised for that. Many of the suggestions made tonight assist in meeting the objective we all share. They have attempted to face the problems facing all Governments. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not comment on all the suggestions made. Certainly they will all be given due consideration.
The theme which has been repeated perhaps most frequently during the debate is that found in paragraph 7.2 of the Report dealing with the weight of the legislative programme. No one is more conscious than Ministers of the Crown of the heavy load of legislation with which the House has been confronted—nor, indeed, of many of the consequences.
The hon. and learned Members for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) argued from this that the answer to many of the problems was a reduction in the load of legislation. I am not sure that that follows. I take on board what is said in the Report about the consequences of the load. But if there is a good reason for introducing a number of statutes, we do not solve any problem by pointing to the difficulties to which they give rise. Whether we think some or all of them are desirable depends on our view of the policy they implement. This is not wholly a party matter but something obviously turns upon which party is in Government. There was a period when those of us on


the Labour benches would willingly have dispensed with the Industrial Relations Act and the Housing Finance Act. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North—

Mr. George: In the course of the evening I have been admonished by Mr. Deputy Speaker for being too long, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) for being philosophical and irrelevant, and in my absence I have been accused of being a Marxist. I accept all that, but being called the "Member for Walsall, North" is too much.

The Solicitor-General: As a close neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) I can only grovel, but I was on his side on this point. Perhaps he will forgive me a measure of calumny. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. Craigen) said, it is not self-evident that a decrease in the bulk of legislation is desirable, and certainly it does not follow that that would be equivalent to greater freedom. Legislation may be intended to remedy what are already inhibitions on freedom.
The Committee recognised in Chapter VII that the pressures at present towards a greater bulk of legislation are very real and recognisable. A party which is in government and does not fulfil its election promises gives rise to criticism in that respect. This is where a Government just cannot win.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman) suggested as a possibility that Opposition parties should come to office with draft legislation already prepared. Obviously, every Opposition consider what they would do if in government, but I find some reservations with the suggestion that one could present the parliamentary draftsmen with a half-drafted Bill. I am not sure that that would be the answer.
Certainly the Government have not overlooked the strains which are imposed upon us by trying to do too much, and the point made by the Committee is obviously taken. One possible solution came from the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I, too, cannot understand why Bills automatically have to die

at Prorogation, and that is certainly a question I shall invite those concerned to answer.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) pointed to the bulk of delegated legislation and gave the startling statistic that it constitutes more than half of our total legislation. There are a number of possibilities about what one could do about it. One possibility is to reduce the amount of delegated legislation by simply not dealing with the subjects. That again depends on one's view of policy. Another suggestion which would go some way towards solving the problem came from the right hon. Member for Crosby, who said that the Statutory Instruments Committee might be invited to consider the merits of certain of these instruments. That is a matter which ought to be considered, and I give an undertaking that what has been said about it will be carefully considered.
On the question of aids to understanding, the hon. and learned Member for Darwen made a proper protest about the habit which all Governments sometimes have tended to adopt of either beginning their legislation with, or including in it, something which is not intended to have legislative effect but is merely there as a crusading declaration of intent. He pointed to certain examples from nationalisation statutes. To show that we are all impartial, I am sure that he will forgive me if I quote:
The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles
The first principle is:
the principle of collective bargaining freely conducted on behalf of workers and employers and with due regard to the general interests of the community.
No doubt he will recognise that quotation. It is from the Industrial Relations Act 1971. But, having balanced the examples, I fully take the point and go along with him.

Mr. Peter Rees: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that what followed was to be construed in the light of that general declaration? Perhaps he is not being entirely fair to that Act, which of course he looks at with the slightly coloured eyes of the partisan.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Darwen gave similar


examples from legislation of which no doubt he disapproved. I was giving a counter-example. It can be argued that declarations of this kind have some legislative effect. Broadly speaking, if all that is intended is a crusading declaration, I think I am on the side of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, but obviously this is a matter which should be considered carefully.
The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal, with an expertise which we all recognise on fiscal matters, referred to the capital transfer tax and the way in which it was drafted. Perhaps one should not spend too long on this point, which is not wholly in the mainstream of the debate. The CTT was replacing the estate duty tax, a duty based principally on death. Those responsible for the draftsmanship thought it appropriate to introduce a new framework. But certainly, as the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon said, most of us would agree that there are peculiar problems in the realm of tax legislation, and certainly we find particular difficulties there in reconciling the various objectives of legislation.
I come now to another vexed question—ministerial responsibility. The suggestion, as I understood it, was that there should be one Minister responsible for the quality of the statute book. Those of us who have such a responsibility might welcome anything which would to some extent lighten our burden and strengthen our arm, but I am not sure what function such a Minister would have in actually producing less legislation.
If the suggestion is that he would approach in turn all of his ministerial colleagues who are responsible for policy and try to persuade each of them to reduce the number of policies he proposed to implement, I am not sure that government could work in that way and that the effect hoped for would be gained.

Mr. Percival: One way in which it might work is that the Minister responsible for the quality of legislation might be in a position to make a Department take back a piece of legislation which really was bad and not bring it forward again until it had it in comprehensible language. This would reduce the burden or at least the task of the House.

The Solicitor-General: That is a different matter, and I was coming to it. Certainly there should be someone who should scrutinise legislation for the purpose of saying, if necessary, "This is not very well prepared and perhaps should be looked at again". The hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon, with his experience of office, will know the way in which these matters work in government It is a complex and delicate series of relationships. The departmental Minister who introduces a piece of legislation must obviously accept responsibility to the House for it. It would be an impossible situation if that responsibility were shared. If the House has any criticism of the quality of draftsmanship it should be directed at the departmental Minister who presents the Bill.
But there is also a responsibility on Law Ministers, who attend the Committees where these matters are considered, who consider the legislation itself and who are at the apex of the pyramid of which the parliamentary draftsmen form part. They certainly have a responsibility. I accept that they cannot possibly scrutinise every piece of legislation which is ever directed to the statute book, but nor could any other Minister. That, as I understand it, was not the purport of the Committee's recommendation. What was suggested was that there should be a Minister who, when the appropriate officials direct attention to a drafting problem or when such a problem emerges in the course of consideration, should have the responsibility and the power to direct the attention of his ministerial colleagues to it. That is a function of the Law Ministers, who for this purpose include the Lord Chancellor, who is a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Mayhew: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that nothing should ever be done or said to diminish the special position in relation to the Government and to the House of Commons occupied by the Law Officers? Does not the introduction of this term "Law Ministers" serve to diminish that special position?

The Solicitor-General: No, I do not think it does. It was simply intended as a term to include the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to say "Law


Officers and Lord Chancellor" wherever the phrase occurs in my speech, of course I will do it.

Sir David Renton: This is an important matter which needs to be clarified, bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said in his letter to me of 11th September, which has been published:
My conclusion is that no change in the existing Ministerial arrangements is called for.
We had no evidence that the Lord Chancellor had a general responsibility. Indeed, in my letter to the Prime Minister I said that all except two of us felt that the Lord Chancellor should have a general responsibility placed upon him. The letter goes on:
This general responsibility is already clearly placed on the Law Ministers, subject of course to the collective responsibility of Ministers generally, with the Lord Chancellor a Member of the Cabinet.
My reading, and others' reading, of that was that "Law Ministers" was an alternative description of the Law Officers and was not intended to include the Lord Chancellor, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman has now said that it does include the Lord Chancellor, that places a different and important interpretation upon the Prime Minister's letter to me.

The Solicitor-General: Certainly that is my understanding, that there would be consultation on any point where it was required between the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor.
I was asked to whom questions relating to these matters should be addressed. Since the Lord Chancellor is not in this House, they should be directed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in relation to drafting matters. In relation to supervision of the parliamentary draftsmen they should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Sir David Renton: In relation to the implementation of the recommendations in the Report, if and when the Government accept them, to whom would the questions then be directed?

The Solicitor-General: I can only repeat that in so far as they relate to drafting matters they will go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and in so far as they relate to

matters affecting the draftsmen they will go to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.
The right hon. Member for Crosby pointed out what I thought was the central theme of the problems with which we are dealing tonight—namely, that we have to draw a balance between the many interests to be served by legislation and, in the process, to strike a balance between broad declarations of principle and that certainty for which the courts and the legal profession have traditionally asked. I thought that that was the point my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South was making in the comment for which he was criticised. I did not interpret what he said as meaning that judges were subject to some kind of improper pressure from Government and would submit to such pressure if it were applied but that the detailed content of legislation imposes a kind of constraint on the judiciary. Of course, we accept that because it is the existing system.

Mr. George: Perhaps I may try to set the record straight. What I said was descriptively correct. The fact is that there are Law Officers who are politicians, and the Lord Chancellor is a politician holding a position at the apex of the Cabinet and the judicial system. That strikes me as constituting influence by the political on the judicial. That is not to suggest that any secret deals are being made between Ministers and judges. That is not the case. My analysis was not, as some suggested, a Marxist analysis. It was a gentle admonition of the way in which our political system operates with the linkage between the Cabinet, the judiciary and the legislature.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that I had misunderstood my hon. Friend, but if he is suggesting that the judiciary is subject to political pressure by reason of the position of the Lord Chancellor, I can only say that that is not the case.
The right hon. Member for Crosby mentioned the need for lawyers to advise their clients clearly as to the likely outcome of litigation before they had incurred heavy costs. That appears to indicate a fair amount of detail in our legislation and a high degree of predictability. Against that, one has to balance other


considerations mentioned by the Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) mentioned the impact of a Bill of Rights. It is probably true that we shall all have to learn to interpret a new kind of legislation with a different texture, because both parties are pursuing studies on this matter and because the courts are now constrained to look at EEC legislation. For both reasons we shall all have to learn different techniques of statutory interpretation.
Most of the matters discussed in this debate are not party issues. Most of the contributions did not seek to make party points. I was sorry that a number of contributions sought to reflect on the sincerity of the Government's commitment. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who unhappily is not with us at the moment, apparently found no complaint in the content of what I said, but accused me of galloping through my speech. That was an allegation dutifully echoed by the hon. and learned Member for Southport. We have learned better than to expect a more generous reaction from the right hon. Member for Yeovil, and one cannot accuse him of over-conciseness in most of his remarks. If his complaint was simply one of style, I apologise to those who may find my style offensive. But if the complaint was that I did not present the House with a complete package of all the Government's conclusions on the recommendations of the Committee, it appears that this is a matter on which the Government cannot win. If the Government, in advance of the debate, had tonight said, "We have made up our minds about these matters", that, too, would have been the subject of criticism.

Mr. Percival: In accusing others of being less than generous the hon. and learned Gentleman is being less than generous himself. He referred to me "dutifully echoing" an allegation. He ought to know me better and to know that I do not echo allegations, dutifully or otherwise. They may be right or wrong. Perhaps I may try to respond to what he is saying. I hope that he will deal with the point. His present speech is a much better speech than that which he made at the beginning of the debate. Now he is seeking to argue various points, whereas the first speech did not seem to contain much. Several

of my hon. Friends felt that. It did not indicate much thought about this point. This is a much better and more useful speech.
What I was saying was that the Prime Minister's letter was saying that there is a clear ministerial responsibility already. If that is so, it is something which has escaped all of us so far. That is where the hon. and learned Gentleman was complacent, and that is why I commented on that point adversely. I was saying to the hon. and learned Gentleman that his first speech did not seem to add anything to that. I hope now that he will be more generous and forthcoming. He is—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes earlier, and this is a very long intervention.

The Solicitor-General: If I were guilty of galloping through my speech, I am certainly prepared to echo what I said a moment ago. No one could accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of galloping through that intervention.
However, I repeat that this is something on which the Government cannot win. First, if I had presented the House earlier this evening with a long and a detailed speech, I would have been subject to the comments, which are often very properly made, that the Front Benches take up too much time. I was conscious that I was hoping, with permission, to speak twice tonight. But certainly I have not attempted to present the House with the Government's conclusions on this matter because this debate was precisely what the Government were waiting for.
Perhaps I may say that some of us are as concerned as right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition about these matters. We have been thinking about them for just as long. We said the same things when in Opposition. We have read the Report of the Committee just as assiduously, and we are as grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) as are the Opposition. We are just as determined to do what we can to improve the quality of the statute book.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington asked me to repeat the assurance that the Governmnt were taking this matter seriously and that what was


said tonight would result expeditiously in whatever action the Government genuinely think appropriate. I repeat that assurance without qualification. What has been said tonight will play a very important part in that consideration.

Sir Michael Havers: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question of there being no intention in the Government's mind to make greater use of enabling legislation? I am sure that he can deal with that point.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me that question previously, and I am sorry to have omitted an answer to it. All that I can say about that is that we on the Government side of the House are as critical in general of enabling legislation as are right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition. But just as on occasion they found it necessary to make use of it, I cannot give a blanket undertaking that it will never be used. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Renton Committee on the Preparation of Legislation (Command Paper No. 6053).

Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dormand.]

Oral Answers to Questions — M4 (CARDIFF)

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the proposed access from the M4 into Cardiff.
The present proposal is for one and a half interchanges—that is, one full interchange which will take eastbound and westbound traffic at Coryton, and what I think can only be described as a half interchange at Pentwyn for eastbound traffic. I believe that these proposals are inadequate to meet the needs of the population of South-East Glamorgan, which is approximately half a million.

The inadequate provision of interchanges will damage the economy of the city, will put in jeopardy the transportation policy of the county and the city, and will prove an environmental disaster for the people of North-West Cardiff.
I draw the attention of the House to the motorway interchange provision in other areas. For instance, in Bristol there will be three interchanges from the M5, or one per 127,000 of population. In the Preston and Blackpool area there are five junctions, one for every 106,000. In Slough and Windsor there are three junctions, one for every 50,000. In Southampton six interchanges are proposed for the M27, one for every 50,000.
This should come as no surprise to the Welsh Office. Indeed, I am confident that the Under-Secretary will have these figures in his brief. This is the cause of my major complaint because all this and more was pointed out at the inquiry. The Under-Secretary need take no credit from the fact that all these statistics are in his brief. I gave many of them in my evidence to the inspector at the inquiry. My complaint is that the Welsh Office has not taken sufficient notice of these important facts relating to Cardiff.
Coming much nearer home from Preston, Blackpool and Southampton, there are five interchanges in our neighbouring town of Newport, one for every 27,000. At Newport some of the local traffic uses the M4. Let no one suggest that this might be a cause of accidents, as some of the theorists have suggested in terms of motorway transportation, because an accident study established by the Welsh Road Safety Unit showed that accidents on that section of the M4 adjacent to Newport were lower than the national average for motorways.
No one can dispute that Cardiff needs better access to the M4 than is now proposed, for three reasons. For many years South-East Glamorgan has been short of industrial jobs. This has been recognised and the area has been accorded development area status. The M4 has rightly been regarded as the artery serving the South Wales economy. If Cardiff and South-East Glamorgan are denied easy access to that artery, the economy of the area will suffer, there will be fewer jobs and the capital city will not be the stimulating growth area and growth centre essential for the general economic health of south Wales.


So on economic grounds we need more access to the M4.
The transportation policy of the South Glamorgan Council has been thought out and developed in full accordance with Government policy. It has been to minimise expenditure and to rely far more on public transport. No major highway construction is planned in Cardiff. But to assist the essential traffic flow to the main centres of employment and commerce, proposals have been developed for a box of primary highways, the northern section of which would be the M4. It is absolutely essential for a transportation policy for Cardiff for each section of the city to have its own access from the primary road system.
I remind the Under-Secretary that there was considerable political opposition to the proposal to establish a hook road into Cardiff. That proposal for a great urban motorway from the M4 right into the centre of Cardiff would have solved all the problems of transportation and of access. But that was rejected politically by the Under-Secretary's own political party, and rejected eventually by the electors in the city of Cardiff in the by-election for a city seat, if not in the General Election of 1970.
Thirdly, the environment of the city will be disastrously damaged by the present proposals. The interchange at Coryton will act as a magnet. From all parts of the city, traffic will be drawn to that interchange. Manor Way will become intolerably congested. It is already overused. Any major accident on that road would paralyse the whole city. The areas adjacent to Manor Way will also suffer. Rhiwbina, Whitchurch and Llandaff North will have their streets crammed with lorries, vans and buses.
I have mentioned only those areas which will suffer most within my own city. But there are many people who know Cardiff even better than I do who will know that the damage will extend outside the constituency of Cardiff Northwest into its neighbouring areas. This one magnet of the Coryton interchange will cause congestion throughout the northern part of the city of Cardiff. With the present proposals I can only say that the picture of the M4 as an artery serving the capital city is a dream which will not be realised. The present Welsh Office proposals will achieve a planning

thrombosis. These things have happened before.
If we allow this to go through, it is safe to predict exactly what a future Under-Secretary at the Welsh Office will say when the people of Llandaff North complain that their shopping centre is congested with lorries and vans, that Rhiwbina is crammed, and that nobody can walk across the streets in Whitchurch. He will say, "We are not responsible for the roads in Llandaff North, Whitchurch and Rhiwbina." But it is the Welsh Office which makes decisions on trunk roads. It is the Welsh Office which will make decisions on interchanges which will affect the citizens of Cardiff.
This happened, as everyone knows, in that monumental planning blunder when we placed a great teaching hospital adjacent to a major road, Eastern Avenue, so that the hospital suffered all the disadvantage of noise, fumes and vibration which have so adversely affected so many of the patients. But there was no compensation of access. When we complained the Welsh Office was quick to point out, when the citizens of the surrounding areas—whose environment has been destroyed by the traffic generated by the hospital—complained, "This is not a problem for the Welsh Office; it is something for the city authority and for South Glamorgan".
I have done a great deal—it has been difficult to do it—to dissuade the people of those areas from taking direct action. I tell them that I do not believe in demonstrating and stopping up roads, and they then tell me "Some of your political opponents are very keen to take direct action in terms of achieving their desired social goals and aims." I tell the Under-Secretary today that I do not want to see an intolerable situation being developed throughout the northern part of the city of Cardiff.
It is absolutely essential in the interests of the city and, indeed, South Glamorgan, that urgent consideration is given for an interchange at Capel Llanilltern, serving the western part of the city; that we can have a road from Eastern Avenue, going a short distance to the proposed M4, and an interchange there that will take both eastbound and westbound traffic. I know that the city authority and the South Glamorgan authority will press—as they


have said in their evidence—for an interchange at Thornhill.
I conclude by asking for two assurances—that urgent consideration be given to placing the Capel Llanilltern-Culverhouse Cross link road into the trunk road programme; and that the Under-Secretary will ask the Welsh Office to co-operate with the South Glamorgan authority as a matter of urgency on the location, design and programming of further interchanges from the M4 to serve Cardiff.

11.42 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have followed this debate with great interest.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) knows his Cardiff, but I do not accept his cardiac allusions. I am grateful to him for raising the matter of access to and from the M4 because of the importance of this road not only to Cardiff but also to the whole of South Wales. It forms a vital part of our regional strategy—an artery to the industrial heart of South Wales which will help to make it much more attractive to industry. The faster and better links that it will provide with the South-East and with the Midlands will place the area in a very favourable position.
I certainly understand the economic point that the hon. Member made at the beginning of his speech. On the M4, I can say that, currently, 30 miles are under construction, costing approximately £100 million, and that today, literally, the Tredegar Park section is starting.
The route for the M4 between Cardiff and Swansea has been located to provide good communications into the mouths of the Valleys in order to encourage the development of industry there. An interchange is also being constructed at Miskin, to provide a good route to the Rhondda. These improvements in communications will bring great benefits to the Valley communities and to the whole economy of South Wales.
The wider issue of the route strategy of the M4 was fully debated at each of the public inquiries into the three sections of the M4 west of Coryton and again at the public inquiry into the Castleton—Coryton section. Indeed, the greater part of the Coryton—Capel Llanilltern public

inquiry was taken up with this issue. All four inspectors separately came to the conclusion that the general strategy adopted was the best.
Representations were made by the hon. Member, shortly before the Coryton—Capel Llanilltern public inquiry was held, that there should have been one public inquiry to cover the whole of the new length of the M4 between Tredegar Park and Groes. There are sound historic, financial and administrative reasons, which were fully explained to the hon. Member in correspondence with the then Secretary of State, why this has never been a practical proposition—explanations, I would add, which were accepted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, with whom he also raised this matter, and by the inspector for the Coryton—Capel Llanilltern public inquiry. It was the latter who said:
I do not consider that delaying the opening of the road for a year on this account can be justified.
I agree with the hon. Member that access to the M4 must be such that the capital can get the maximum benefit from the road. Any interchange on the road itself is, of course, only one element in that access.
As the hon. Member knows, the need for interchanges to serve Cardiff was considered at length at the public inquiry into the Castleton—Coryton section which was held last winter in Cardiff. Indeed, he himself appeared before the inspector to give evidence and advocated the provision of additional interchanges, one at Capel Llanilltern and the other in the Pentwyn area from where a new link road with Eastern Avenue was envisaged. He will recollect that the case for the former was accepted in principle by the Welsh Office at the inquiry, but the inspector came to the conclusion that the need for an interchange at Pentwyn had not been demonstrated.
There were also demands at the public inquiry from the South Glamorgan County Council and the Cardiff City Council, together with private developers, for the provision of an interchange with the A469 principal road between Cardiff and Caerphilly at Thornhill. But I remind the hon. Member that the inspector found that this road is already overloaded and will continue to be so. Accordingly, his


conclusions were—I read from his report, paragraph 12.19—
The suggestion has been made that an interchange should be provided at Thornhill. My conclusion is that, the Hook Road scheme having been abandoned, it would be a grave disservice to Cardiff to construct an interchange with no links to it other than the totally inadequate A469. The provision of an interchange could have no other effect but to force the construction of a link road and thus the reversal of the county council's declared policy of no major roads in the north of the City. The advantages to the consortium of a private interchange are appreciated but I will make no recommendation in the matter.
Nearly two years ago, my officials told the county council that the need for one or more additional interchanges between Castleton and Coryton was accepted, but the location of these facilities and the associated link roads could be considered only as part of the revised highway network which was then being prepared for Cardiff following the city council's decision to abandon the Hook Road. In saying that, I am taking account of the important point which the hon. Gentleman made about the city's transportation policy.
My Department has not altered its stance on this, and the motorway is being designed so that interchanges could be constructed, if necessary, in the Thornhill and Pentwyn areas. It would be feasible also to construct interchanges at other points, but the actual number and location cannot be decided in advance of firm decisions by the county and city authorities on the development of the local highway network.
As the inspector has rightly recognised, the effect of providing an interchange with the A469 at Thornhill without any accompanying improvement to the local highway network would be to divert motorway and valleys traffic travelling from the north-west to the south-east side of Cardiff on to Caerphilly Road and hence through other largely residential streets to its destination. This would be an unacceptable development from both a traffic and an environmental standpoint, particularly since it could well be that residents in the roads affected might be denied the benefits of the mitigating provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 that it has been possible to offer residents of Manor Way and properties adjoining Eastern Avenue.
The case for an interchange at Pentwyn was based on fears that, in its absence, there would be heavy flows of traffic through the city from eastern Cardiff to the west and north via Gabalfa. When figures were finally produced, however, these showed that the Pentwyn interchange and link would divert very little traffic from the city streets. In the light of this information, the inspector found that the evidence did not support the arguments advanced in favour of an interchange.
Decisions on interchanges cannot be taken on the basis of subjective views, no matter how sincerely they may be held. The need for a particular interchange must first be established on the basis of known facts. It is then necessary to put proposals to the public in the form of draft orders and only after careful consideration has been given to representations received can a decision be taken on whether an interchange is to be built and, if so, its location and layout.
The hon. Member is concerned about the number of interchanges being provided for Cardiff, but I suggest that he should look at the road system of the Cardiff area as a whole. Eastern Avenue, which was completed four years ago, includes three interchanges which have been located specifically to provide good connections with the central area of the city and with the docks as well as with an important and growing residential area. This high standard primary distribution system will be connected directly to the motorway by the Tredegar Park-St. Mellons scheme, and so provide direct access between the heart of the city and the main markets and industrial areas in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member is concerned about access between the proposed large-scale housing and commercial development at St. Mellons and the motorway and I think he will find that adequate facilities will be available if he studies the plans.
Traffic flow between the new development at St. Mellons and the east should be comparatively light, and as the existing A48 will be relieved of most of the-traffic at present using it by the construction of the motorway between Tredegar Park and St. Mellons there should be adequate facilities available which will


include a full interchange with the M4 at Tredegar Park.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is considering adding to the trunk road preparation pool a scheme for an interchange at Capel Llanilltern with a link connecting with the Cardiff road network at Culverhouse Cross, so that this proposal could be brought forward in step with other roads being planned by the South Glamorgan County Council and provide a completely new access to the M4 to serve western and southern parts of the city.
Until the Castleton-Coryton section is built, Manor Way will, unfortunately, have to remain as the main route to the north, but this section of trunk road has been strengthened and improved to increase traffic capacity and safety for pedestrians. Signals and a pedestrian subway have been provided and the county council has been asked to prepare proposals for a footbridge, and, as I have already mentioned, my Rt. hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has additionally exercised his discretionary powers to offer double-glazing for dwellings in and around Manor Way in accordance with the Noise Insulation Regulations. These are positive measures which have been taken to help the people living in Manor Way and Northern Avenue during the interim period between the opening of the M4 west of Coryton and the completion of the Coryton-Castleton section. Their benefits will, however, remain after this new connection to the motorway to the east is open and later when a new access to the west of Cardiff is provided. When the county council comes forward with plans for a road network calling for more interchanges the requirements will be considered further.
Obviously, the county council requires time to re-think the highway plans for Cardiff following the decision to abandon the hook road and not to build any new primary roads in the northern part of the city in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I can assure the hon. Member that the county council has thought out its basic transportation policy and is happy to liaise with the Welsh Office in order to provide interchanges.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that before the conclusion of my remarks I can come to the point of giving assurances. I am, therefore, grateful for the hon. Member's intervention.
The Council will also probably wish to consider very carefully the views expressed by the inspector about the consequences of constructing an interchange at Thornhill.
I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to see the construction of the M4 deferred while the road plans for Cardiff are being re-presented and rethought. This motorway has already been delayed by particularly thorough statutory procedures, and my Rt. hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is most anxious to press on with construction quickly. The M4 will bring great benefits to the economy of the whole of South Wales, and the hon. Member will also appreciate that delaying the Castleton-Coryton scheme by further argument now will prolong the use of Manor Way by through traffic.
I appreciate that there may be a need for additional road links between the centre of Cardiff and the motorway, but the routes will have to be chosen very carefully to fit in with local planning requirements as well as to take account of the views of people living in the areas through which the traffic will pass. Let me come to the hon. Member's request for assurances. The county and city councils should be well placed to assess and balance the various traffic and environmental problems involved, and I shall, of course, be very pleased to consider carefully and sympathetically any proposals which they may wish to bring forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.